I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[AV1611VET]

AV has a very... all encompassing view of what science is. Very all or nothing.

Science is what it is.

True science is a gift from God.

Everything else can take a hike.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Science is what it is.

True science is a gift from God.

Everything else can take a hike.

As has been pointed out many times, your views on science are VERY contradictory to that statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends on what you mean by love,

LOL -- solid aurum.

... but I would argue that we can observe the effects of love on things and thus prove that it exists (repeatedly).

In other words, by cause-and-effect?

How about these, re the existence of God:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

(Or can cause-and-effect take a hike now? )

The reason this differs from God's existance by viewing the works of Christians is that it proves that people believe in God is a true fact just as it can be proven people feel love but it doesn't say anything about whether God exists.

Which came first, in your opinion? God, or belief in God?

In your opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sure they do make claims,

I was talking about Warden.

He shoots down my claims, but doesn't have the fortitude to state his.

And I don't blame him, either.

Academians would eat him alive.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was talking about Warden.

He shoots down my claims, but doesn't have the fortitude to state his.

And I don't blame him, either.

Academians would eat him alive.

Would you like me to make a claim then?

Okay, here's my claim: you make God out to be deceptive with your embedded age talk.

How's that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry what are you asking here?

It's a simple question.

Let's simplify it.

Which came first? the earth? or the primeval atom?

If science teaches the primeval atom, then science is contradicting the Bible.

No I'm not a young earth creationist, are you?

No.

I believe in Embedded Age Creation (maturity without history).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No.

I believe in Embedded Age Creation (maturity without history).

That is Young Earth Creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I experience Love. Even Love that made me go crazy over the women I married. So I know Love exist.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

 

[Discussion]

LOL -- solid aurum.



In other words, by cause-and-effect?

How about these, re the existence of God:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

(Or can cause-and-effect take a hike now? )



Which came first, in your opinion? God, or belief in God?

In your opinion.

I've explained your entire list already please don't repeat it (feel free to go back and go over my explanations). They are all completly explainable on an atheist framework.

I obviously believe neither is true as God doesn't exist in response to your question. But yes I do believe observing things that we can't see can be done through cause and effect e.g. EM waves.

 

[AV1611VET]

As has been pointed out many times, your views on science are VERY contradictory to that statement.

I disagree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I disagree.

It really is though.

 

[Discussion]

It's a simple question.

Let's simplify it.

Which came first? the earth? or the primeval atom?

If science teaches the primeval atom, then science is contradicting the Bible.



No.

I believe in Embedded Age Creation (maturity without history).

Yes I agree that science contradicts the bible and the bible is wrong on things or else I would be a Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would you like me to make a claim then?

Okay, here's my claim: you make God out to be deceptive with your embedded age talk.

How's that?

Now that's a claim I'm sure academia would agree with.

As I would expect them to.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is Young Earth Creationism.

Warden, all you're going to do is confuse Discussion with that ... error.

 

[Discussion]

Show me science in Genesis 1.



Educated people.



Neither do I.



As I'm fond of pointing out:

God created the universe over a six-day period, by a series of miracles that raised the level of mass/energy in it from zero to what it is today.

If this is you pointing out that a literal reading of the bible is incompatable with science I agree. I would like to point out that if academians are just educated people and you distrust all of them then thats quite a lot of people.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now that's a claim I'm sure academia would agree with.

As I would expect them to.

It's a good claim because you do do that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Warden, all you're going to do is confuse Discussion with that ... error.

It's not an error. You say the world WAS CREATED 6000 years ago. Ergo, you believe in a young earth with the APPERANCE of old age. Appearance does not equal actual age.

Therefor, you are a YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes I agree that science contradicts the bible and the bible is wrong on things or else I would be a Christian.

Then what did you mean by this:

What do you mean by contradicting the bible though? Under a completely literal interpretation?

 

[Discussion]

Now that's a claim I'm sure academia would agree with.

As I would expect them to.

Just kinda a random point, if you're an "Embedded Age Creationist" then why did God make the universe so big if its just for us?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If this is you pointing out that a literal reading of the bible is incompatable with science I agree. I would like to point out that if academians are just educated people and you distrust all of them then thats quite a lot of people.

That is how it is, sadly. Anyone who disagrees with his interpretation is an 'academian' or part of 'academia', as he views it.

Think of it as Don Quixote charging at windmills thinking they're giants. But less funny and poetic.