I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[AV1611VET]

Where does it clearly state: "NB: This passage is showing a Not To Scale diagram"?

This should be close enough:

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

 

[AV1611VET]

To the OP, that's true only if science can prove that the cause is God would that be true. But as Warden pointed out, the existence of God can not be scientifically proven. It's just crazy thinking to even try in the way I see things.

That's because it was already proven.

In real time.

Remember the empty tomb, and the convincing ways Jesus showed Himself to His disciples afterwards?

 

[dlamberth]

That's because it was already proven.

In real time.

Remember the empty tomb, and the convincing ways Jesus showed Himself to His disciples afterwards?

How does science fit into any of that?

 

[AV1611VET]

How does science fit into any of that?

Run His resurrection through the scientific method and see what conclusion you come to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This should be close enough:

Hebrews 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

I do not accept that in the slightest, especially since it's not even in the same part as the construction of the molten sea.

Ergo, you're very much wrong about that part being a 'Not To Scale' diagram. Fun fact: Not To Scale is only ever used when there are visual diagrams. Using it for written instructions is not only absurd but impossible.

 

[Ophiolite]

Run His resurrection through the scientific method and see what conclusion you come to.

No matter how many events, issues or happenings we study, there is a remarkable consistency in the unreliability of eye witness testimony.

 

[AV1611VET]

I do not accept that in the slightest, especially since it's not even in the same part as the construction of the molten sea.

Looks like you're SOL then.

(Short On Luck)

For those who have an academic mindset that outranks the Bible, I have this to say:

It looks like NTS has you SOL.

Ergo, you're very much wrong about that part being a 'Not To Scale' diagram. Fun fact: Not To Scale is only ever used when there are visual diagrams. Using it for written instructions is not only absurd but impossible.

How old was Darwin when he died?

73?

Or 73 years, 2 months, and 7 days?

(Please answer this.)

 

[AV1611VET]

No matter how many events, issues or happenings we study, there is a remarkable consistency in the unreliability of eye witness testimony.

Academia studied Jesus walking on water, did it?

I suspect they haven't.

This means that, once they convinced themselves you can't walk on water, it's safe to say Jesus didn't either.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe academia did study Jesus walking on the sea of Galilee?

Maybe they even tested their theory under controlled conditions?

Maybe ten scientists just went out on the sea of Galilee during a storm and just got out of their ship to walk back to shore?

And their next-of-kin published the results?

 

[Ophiolite]

Academia studied Jesus walking on water, did it?

I suspect they haven't.

This means that, once they convinced themselves you can't walk on water, it's safe to say Jesus didn't either.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe academia did study Jesus walking on the sea of Galilee?

Maybe they even tested their theory under controlled conditions?

Maybe ten scientists just went out on the sea of Galilee during a storm and just got out of their ship to walk back to shore?

And their next-of-kin published the results?

You have rather missed the point. We have a two millenia old report of hearsay of eye witness testimony that asserts something happened. I point out that eye witness testimony is unreliable and you avoid the topic. Ah! Of course, how foolish of me. You didn't miss the point, you are simply unable to deal with it, so you ignored it. I give you that - you're consistent. Selective vsion makes you feel comfortable.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have rather missed the point.

Of course I have.

We have a two millenia old report of hearsay of eye witness testimony that asserts something happened.

Do you apply that attitude across the board?

That is, to your own people as well?

I point out that eye witness testimony is unreliable and you avoid the topic.

It depends on the arena, doesn't it?

If you were the victim of a crime, would you want an eyewitness on your side in court?

Ah! Of course, how foolish of me. You didn't miss the point, you are simply unable to deal with it, so you ignored it.

Let's deal then.

Lay them cards out on the table and let's discuss it.

We'll see who ignores what.

I give you that - you're consistent.

Then show your consistency as well.

Selective vision makes you feel comfortable.

Here's my selective vision:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Let's see yours.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course I have.



Do you apply that attitude across the board?

That is, to your own people as well?



It depends on the arena, doesn't it?

If you were the victim of a crime, would you want an eyewitness on your side in court?



Let's deal then.

Lay them cards out on the table and let's discuss it.

We'll see who ignores what.



Then show your consistency as well.



Here's my selective vision:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Let's see yours.

... I just go with BOTH science and the Bible; academics and faith. I see little reason why not. I get to have my cake and eat it too.

 

[AV1611VET]

... I just go with BOTH science and the Bible;

So do I.

Where do you set your priorities though?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So do I.

Where do you set your priorities though?

Priorities? In my perspective and worldview, there's little if any conflict between practical science and the prophetic Bible, so I don't have to worry about being selective and landing in a puddle of cognitive dissonance like so many do. Besides, science doesn't dictate priorities.

As I said, in my view (which relies upon the Critical Thinking apparatus as a liaison between the two realms), I get to have my cake and eat it too.

 

[BCP1928]

So do I.

Where do you set your priorities though?

It depends on whether you are a Christian Nationalist or not. The only purpose of declaring the Bible to be literal and inerrant is to make it seem to be objectively true and thus a justification for imposing the Christian political agenda on non-Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends on whether you are a Christian Nationalist or not. The only purpose of declaring the Bible to be literal and inerrant is to make it seem to be objectively true and thus a justification for imposing the Christian political agenda on non-Christians.

Wow!

Are you sure we're not out to take over the world?

And what you consider "imposing the Christian political agenda on non-Christians," Joshua says:

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[BCP1928]

Wow!

Are you sure we're not out to take over the world?

That's the goal, apparently. It's called "American Exceptionalism."

And what you consider "imposing the Christian political agenda on non-Christians," Joshua says:

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you apply that attitude across the board?

That is, to your own people as well?

I don't have any "people", but of course I am immensely sceptical of any claims with weak provenance, based upon eye witness testimony and unsupported by independent, multiply verified evidence. It would be ridiculous to give any credence to such claims, especially if their truth or falsehood could have a major impact upon my life. Any other attitude would, to my mind, be ridiculous, irresponsible, self-indulgent and metaphorically criminal.

It depends on the arena, doesn't it?

If you were the victim of a crime, would you want an eyewitness on your side in court?

No, there is no dependence on context. I have a very low opinion of eye-witness testimony. I do not rely upon my own "eye witness", so why would I ever place much reliance of that of a friend, a stranger, or a group of unknowns who have been dead for a couple of millenia?

I certainly don't want eye-witness on my side in court. I want them to be on the side of justice. I want them to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as they understand it. I don't want them, for example, saying "yes, that's the man I saw hit Ophiolite with a dead aardvark" if they don't think it was the man. Perhap I am the one mistaken in my identification, perhaps my tentative identification of my assailant has led to the wrong man being on trial.

Let's deal then.

Lay them cards out on the table and let's discuss it.

We'll see who ignores what.

I'm agreable to trying, but I'm not sure what you mean, unless it is this:

Here's my selective vision:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Let's see yours.

It seems you are asking one of two things:

1. How do I evaluate the "truth" of what is in the Bible?
2. How do I evaluate the "truth" of anything?

Since I don't know which one you mean I shall answer both.

1. Since I moved, in my teens and early twenties, from being a believer to being an agnostic and finally, in regard to the Abrahamic religions an atheist, I no longer consider those aspects of Bible that represent the "truth" of Christianity to be relevant to me. The reason being a lack of evidence, coupled with a conclusion that faith - which sustained my belief for many years - was an unreliable "thing" for arriving at "truth".
I think there are valuable moral lessons in some of the teachings of Jesus. This value is independent of whether or not there ever was a historical person called Jesus. There are some beautiful evocative words sprinkled throughout that have their own truth. As a historical work I understand there is controversy over much of the Bible, but as none of that controversy seems to impact on aspects of history that interest me, I'm not troubled either way. The only reason I pay more attention to the Bible than I do the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita is that I was raised as a Christian, not a Moslem, or a Hindu.

2. For matters that I consider to be important I examine the views of recognised experts on the matter, trying my best to sample across the spectrum of opinions. I explore the basis upon which those views have been developed, looking for sound evidence and well reasoned argument. I then provisionally accept what seems to be best supported position and act accordingly based on it being true. If new evidence or arguments arise I assess them and, if appropriate shift my provisional acceptance.
There are two downsides of this approach. It requires me to accept positions that I "just don't like", such as Big Bang Theory. I have no logical, or evidentiary grounds to reject it and there is, currently, no better explanation for the present expression of the universe, so I have to put up with it. But, "I just don't like it". As far as I can tell the universe remains indifferent to my dislike.
Edit: I forgot to put in the second downside. Sometimes, I decide there is not enough data to make a choice from the options, so I defer. This is seen by some people as indecision. I find that silly since indecision should only be applied to things that demand a decision be made now.

If you were asking something else, you need to tell me what it was.

 

[dlamberth]

So do I.

Where do you set your priorities though?

For myself, Science takes priority with things of this physical world. The Bible takes priority with ones relationship with God.

 

[AV1611VET]

For myself, Science takes priority with things of this physical world. The Bible takes priority with ones relationship with God.

Thank you for your honesty.

 

[Discussion]

Thank you for your honesty.

Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?