Taking Questions on Embedded Age Creation

[Kylie]

If you can get the cause, you don't need the effect.

How then do we get the effect if there is no cause?

Or are you saying things can be uncaused?

 

[Aaron112]

God already talked with who He Chose about the FLOOD. So if there was another "interview" it would not be exclusive.
Also, if God granted information/revelation to someone, He might not talk with an unbeliever. See in Scripture the ones who pray who God Says He does not even hear their prayers.

If you can get the cause, you don't need the effect.
Suppose God grants you an exclusive interview with Him to discuss the Flood.
What are you going to ask Him?

 

[Kylie]

If it is something in the natural world, you do use natural means to look at evidence. Not sure what such a simple and obvious concept launches you into word game mode.

But the problem is that if you have something in the supernatural, then you need to use the supernatural to verify it. But this relies on the supernatural to exist in teh first place. If it does not exist, then there's no way to verify it.

Let me put it another way:

I can't use Star Trek to verify something from Star Trek. That would mean I could verify that Klingons are real, yet clearly this is ludicrous.

Likewise, using the supernatural to verify supernatural evidence is also ludicrous, because it starts from the assumption that the supernatural is real.

Well, you would not pay a psychic to program it would you?

But if you don't know how to program a computer, being told to program the computer is not going to help you, is it?

A piano is physical and needs to be operated accordingly. What does that have to do with the creation of the world by God? You would not bang on piano keys to find out how He did it. Just like you would not look at a rock to find out how He did it.

Being told to do something that you don't know how to do doesn't help, that's the point I am trying to make.

If I say to you, "Truthpls, just do the thing," and you say, "But I don't know how to do the thing," it won't help you at all if I say, "It doesn't matter if you don't know how to do the thing, just do the thing!"

Not applicable to creation. Whatever He did in making the universe exist with a word is not testable by natural science

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

Except if that rock was here at creation 6000 years ago, the ratios in any part of the rock do not matter. They were all there when the rock came to exist. (assuming that rock was there at creation. All natural science can do is look at the various isotope ratios in a rock and how they undergo a decay process. That has zero connection to How or when God created them. You just try to grasp at straws and grasp at the processes going on now, as if they are what brought the rock into being! That is not verifying anything except that the way God created things now works a certain way.

Notice that big IF in your argument there?

You need to show that the IF is an IS.

Unless the rock was made after creation, which was something like 6000 years ago, then none of what you say applies. If a pattern of more or less isotopes of a certain kind exist in a rock, and each are undergoing processes, that does not mean the top part created the lower part or etc!

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

No. It shows it is uselessly bad. It is just an exercise to say the rock formed it's little self and was not created by God. You see if that rock was created, it came to exist as is more or less 6000 years ago.

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

All you are doing is saying, "It is wrong because it disagrees with what I have already decided is true."

That is not a valid argument, so don't use it again.

No. You just do not learn from your mistakes and do not even know you are making mistakes. The ratios are not dates! They only would/could/should/we believe be dates IF the rock was not created. That says nothing, except you choose to view a created rock as NOT created!

You do not understand how radiometric dating works. You are completely wrong about it, and I do not think you understand enough science to be able to understand an explanation of it.

Declaring the created ratios in a created rock to have actually come to exist BY the natural processes going on is absolutely nothing more than a statement of faith.

Except it is testable and the tests show that it is accurate.

Except you gave no actual example. No link. No support. You might be thinking of a formation like the grand canyon where the layers consist of different isotope ratios with more daughter material lower down or some such?
IF so, then, no. Sorry! Let's just use an example where we say that the area that got (some say quickly) carved out was laid down in creation week. Let's say that when God created the world, over the hours involved (or minutes or seconds or whatever it was that day) that each layer ended up with different ratios! Or, possibly we might add the day where He separated the water from land and there was massive movements and changes in the planet. There also, possibly a difference in ratios of various layers could have happened. Bottom line is that we do not know all that the creation itself, and subsequent forming and finishing and separating happened! The end result though, was the layers in this example, came to exist as they are! (later having a giant canyon carved out in them)
Obviously there is no need for anyone to claim that the different layers and ratios occurred 'naturally' over great time. Such declarations are just ways to insult and explain away creation and God.

Do you not understand what a HYPOTHETICAL is?

But there are plenty of places all over the world where rocks higher in the geologic column date to younger than those rocks below them.

In the example of the Grand Canyon, the only prediction from science is that the various layers will have different ratios (that they mistakenly associated with ages) in them. Nothing is falsifiable about that regarding whether the rocks were actually created or not! Testing the layers and verifying that there are different ratios in them does NOT mean they got there by natural processes!

There is plenty of falsifiable claims.

If the rocks at the top date to be OLDER than the rocks underneath them, then that would falsify it just fine.

You have no idea what you are talking about

 

[Aaron112]

Creation Shows God's Reality
According to Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”

God’s existence is evident through the natural world, and as such, humanity has no justification for denying His reality. The “invisible qualities” referred to are God’s eternal power and divine nature, which are not tangible or directly observable. However, they are revealed through the creation itself.

KJ21
For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.
ASV
For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
AMP
For ever since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through His workmanship [all His creation, the wonderful things that He has made], so that they [who fail to believe and trust in Him] are without excuse and without defense.

 

[truthpls]

But the problem is that if you have something in the supernatural, then you need to use the supernatural to verify it. But this relies on the supernatural to exist in teh first place. If it does not exist, then there's no way to verify it.

Yes we verified it billions of times. Every which way except the natural only. Don't blame us if you want to use nothing but the natural.

Let me put it another way:

I can't use Star Trek to verify something from Star Trek. That would mean I could verify that Klingons are real, yet clearly this is ludicrous.

Likewise, using the supernatural to verify supernatural evidence is also ludicrous, because it starts from the assumption that the supernatural is real.

You cannot use the supernatural so how do you propose using it to verify something? Wisdom is justified of her children. We verify Him every day. History verifies it by fulfilled prophesy. Answered prayer verifies Him. Miracles for some prove there is more than the natural world. Hundreds of people saw Jesus after He rose from the dead. The gospel writers knew Him, and some were friends and family. The supernatural is not an assumption but a fact of life and history for most of the world. You don't get to wave it all away because it is not natural and then demand that the only criteria for 'verification' is the physical and natural only. God does not cast His proof pearls before swine. Nor does He move and work through natural science exclusively (if at all)

Man is a spirit and a body. You do not send a woman in for x rays to check the health of her soul.

But if you don't know how to program a computer, being told to program the computer is not going to help you, is it?

If you don't know a rock was created with ratios intact, then dating it by the ratios older than it's creation is not going to help you is it?

If I say to you, "Truthpls, just do the thing," and you say, "But I don't know how to do the thing," it won't help you at all if I say, "It doesn't matter if you don't know how to do the thing, just do the thing!"

And if that thing was to explain the minutia of how God created the universe with a word in a day, no, it would not help me, you, or natural science to do so

And there you are starting from the assumption that the supernatural is real. Just like I said earlier.

You assume it isn't. Then you set up the natural only criteria to 'verify' everything. Just admit science can't verify anything outside it's little scope of abilities and jurisdiction. Sorry if you imagined that it's jurisdiction included knowing where the universe came from and how. No. Science at best can tell us a bit about how it currently works.

Notice that big IF in your argument there?

You need to show that the IF is an IS.

Don't we all? The way to show that God is is to get our hearts right with Him and ask. For the poor naturalonlyists they have no possible way of knowing by their own little wisdom. As the heaven is high above the earth, so great is His wisdom above natural only science's.

All you are doing is saying, "It is wrong because it disagrees with what I have already decided is true."

The attribution of the existence of rocks to the current processes in the rocks is wrong because all you have done is decided that was true and the way to explain creation

You do not understand how radiometric dating works. You are completely wrong about it, and I do not think you understand enough science to be able to understand an explanation of it.

I suggest it is not I with that particular challenge. I know you act like you do and talk a big talk. However, we have seen no real nitty gritty understanding demonstrated here yet from you on that score.

Except it is testable and the tests show that it is accurate.

All that is accurate is that the ratios exist in the rock and processes. Why and for how long etc is all in the realm of speculation and belief.

But there are plenty of places all over the world where rocks higher in the geologic column date to younger than those rocks below them.

I agree. How much younger is the question! Could it be milliseconds in the hour of creation that caused the ratios? Or maybe acts of the creator in creation week in separating the land and waters? etc. Who could know?

There is plenty of falsifiable claims.

If the rocks at the top date to be OLDER than the rocks underneath them, then that would falsify it just fine.

If you interpreted the ratios that were there at creation as 'dates' you might have a point. Sorry, they are different ratios, not so much older by any great time.

 

[Kylie]

Yes we verified it billions of times.

It has never been verified once.

If you disagree, please show me a way in which it can be independently verified. That is, show me a way of checking it such that every person reaches the same conclusion about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

God already talked with who He Chose about the FLOOD. So if there was another "interview" it would not be exclusive.
Also, if God granted information/revelation to someone, He might not talk with an unbeliever. See in Scripture the ones who pray who God Says He does not even hear their prayers.

Point taken!

 

[truthpls]

It has never been verified once.

If you disagree, please show me a way in which it can be independently verified. That is, show me a way of checking it such that every person reaches the same conclusion about it.

Define 'independently verified'? Something tells me that really mean 'natural only stamped checked and approved' That means in plain English that 'you have no possible chance of verifying' That is exactly how science wants to treat believers and God and history. The poor sods think they are the world's only arbiters of what can be accepted as real. So the first lifeform is in. The big bang is in. Man's evolutionary ascent from animals is in. String theory alternate universes are in. God is out. Heaven is out. Eternal life is out. Miracles are out. Spirits are out. Historical supernatural occurrences are out. The bible is out...etc.

If someone told us this would be the future 200 years ago, it would probably have sounded unbelievable that the world could be captive to such a hostile cult like philosophy and tyranny

 

[Kylie]

Define 'independently verified'?

"Independently verifiable" means someone else can come and examine the same thing you have examined and they reach the same conclusions.

For example, if there is a flagpole, you can measure the height of that flagpole.

Someone else can come and measure the height of the flagpole as well.

But you and the other person will reach the same result. It doesn't matter if you use the same method as the other person or if you each use a different method. You will still get the same result.

Again, I will ask you to show me how the supernatural has been independently verified.

 

[truthpls]

"Independently verifiable" means someone else can come and examine the same thing you have examined and they reach the same conclusions.

That is true for almost any belief system. If I say that most bible prophesy is not history, millions of people can examine, and have examined that and agree.

For example, if there is a flagpole, you can measure the height of that flagpole.

Someone else can come and measure the height of the flagpole as well.

But you and the other person will reach the same result. It doesn't matter if you use the same method as the other person or if you each use a different method. You will still get the same result.

That applies to a physical object. We cannot measure the first lifeform claimed by science. We cannot measure what it was like before the claimed big bang that science preaches. WE can no more speak about what that pre big bang was like than we could speak about the universe before anything existed here and God created it.

Again, I will ask you to show me how the supernatural has been independently verified.

How do you define 'independent'? Do you mean verified by people who cannot see the supernatural and don't believe in it and have no ability to deal with it?

The prophesy of a virgin conceiving and giving birth to Messiah was spoken by Isaiah. It was independently verified long after his death by many many people.
Moses saw God write the commandments on tables of stone. No one else was there to see it. Yet billions have heralded the wisdom and value of that writing.

 

[Kylie]

That is true for almost any belief system. If I say that most bible prophesy is not history, millions of people can examine, and have examined that and agree.

If you would like to have a discussion about Biblical prophecy and whether it is valid or not, please start a thread and tag me in it, and I will respond.

That applies to a physical object. We cannot measure the first lifeform claimed by science. We cannot measure what it was like before the claimed big bang that science preaches. WE can no more speak about what that pre big bang was like than we could speak about the universe before anything existed here and God created it.

No, it applies to EVERYTHING.

If there is a claim, then we can check to see if what is required for that claim is real.

How do you define 'independent'? Do you mean verified by people who cannot see the supernatural and don't believe in it and have no ability to deal with it?

Here's your problem...

You make excuses as to why you can count people out. That way, you can justify only keep the people who agree with you.

"If we don't include the people who disagree with me, then everyone agrees with me, and that proves I'm right!"

If you don't see the problem there, then there's no hope for a rational discussion with you.

The prophesy of a virgin conceiving and giving birth to Messiah was spoken by Isaiah. It was independently verified long after his death by many many people.
Moses saw God write the commandments on tables of stone. No one else was there to see it. Yet billions have heralded the wisdom and value of that writing.

Again, start a thread on Biblical prophecy, and I will address this there.

 

[truthpls]

If you would like to have a discussion about Biblical prophecy and whether it is valid or not, please start a thread and tag me in it, and I will respond.

Thanks, but I see little to discuss about most of the bible prophesies that are not history. The apostles did offer a lot of old testament prophesy that was fulfilled, and I think you would want to overrule them? Ha.

No, it applies to EVERYTHING.

If there is a claim, then we can check to see if what is required for that claim is real.

No. It applies only where it applies. If you want to verify that a spirit did something, we would not pay a banker to verify it. Nor would we hire science. Give unto the natural what is the natural's and give onto God what is God's . Verify things natural with natural science. Verify things of the spirit with someone else. Your idea that one size fit all was false.

Here's your problem...

You make excuses as to why you can count people out. That way, you can justify only keep the people who agree with you.

Science counts out all that is not natural, that way they can keep God out of their knowledge. God invites all to come to Him and be made spiritually alive and aware and knowledgeable. Those who do not come, like natural only loving science devotees cannot blame Him for counting them out!

 

[Kylie]

Thanks, but I see little to discuss about most of the bible prophesies that are not history. The apostles did offer a lot of old testament prophesy that was fulfilled, and I think you would want to overrule them? Ha.

I hold the position that Biblical prophecy is not accurate, since the prophecy may have been added after the fact, the event that allegedly fulfilled it may have been invented, any number of reasons. If you want to discuss Biblical prophecy then start a new thread and I will be happy to discuss it there. If you do NOT want to discuss Biblical prophecy, please do not bring it up in this thread, since I am NOT going to accept prophecies which I consider unreliable as evidence for your claims.

No. It applies only where it applies. If you want to verify that a spirit did something, we would not pay a banker to verify it. Nor would we hire science. Give unto the natural what is the natural's and give onto God what is God's . Verify things natural with natural science. Verify things of the spirit with someone else. Your idea that one size fit all was false.

You need to verify that spirits are real before you start claiming they did things.

So start there. Prove that spirits are real.

Science counts out all that is not natural, that way they can keep God out of their knowledge. God invites all to come to Him and be made spiritually alive and aware and knowledgeable. Those who do not come, like natural only loving science devotees cannot blame Him for counting them out!

Now you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

I have told you MANY times that science accepts ANYTHING that can be independently verified.

If you are going to ignore what I say and continually misrepresent the scientific position, then you are not having a discussion in good faith or being hoinest.

 

[truthpls]

I hold the position that Biblical prophecy is not accurate, since the prophecy may have been added after the fact, the event that allegedly fulfilled it may have been invented, any number of reasons.

Useless speculation with no support.

If you want to discuss Biblical prophecy then start a new thread and I will be happy to discuss it there. If you do NOT want to discuss Biblical prophecy, please do not bring it up in this thread, since I am NOT going to accept prophecies which I consider unreliable as evidence for your claims.

No one said you would but you screamed for evidence of the supernatural. I mentioned some like fulfilled prophesy. You can disbelieve all you like, but they are evidence. Period. Evidence does not depend on you voting it be evidence or not.

You need to verify that spirits are real before you start claiming they did things.

You need to verify they are not, despite most of the world knowing they are if you start claiming there is nothing but the natural. Spirits are real. God is a spirit. Angels have been witnessed. You cannot dispute it. All you can do is admit you don't know.

So start there. Prove that spirits are real.

Prove there is no God? He already proved there is. You have no way to prove anything why act as if you do? Did you really think that because you personally reject certain realities, that they suddenly go away? That seems a bit like the ostrich philosophy.

Now you are deliberately misrepresenting my position.

I have told you MANY times that science accepts ANYTHING that can be independently verified.

Say it all you like it is ridiculous and not true. Science does not accept the supernatural because it insisted on natural only verification! They can sit there in the dark room and pretend that there is no world or solar system outside if they want to. They cannot verify ,touch, see, feel, smell, taste, or touch the supernatural, so they have no power, ability, or authority or right to speak about it. When they sit there in that room looking at processes in a rock and claiming that tells them where the universe came from and man, that is foolishness. Nothing but a rejection of God and blasphemy.

If you are going to ignore what I say and continually misrepresent the scientific position, then you are not having a discussion in good faith or being hoinest.

The scientific position is that they are crippled, blind and dumb and deaf to all spiritual things. No one in their right mind could question that fact. Be honest

 

[Aaron112]

For honest students and seekers and researchers only, the reference below.
For dishonest persons anywhere, forget it
"For more than forty years, the book Evidence That Demands a Verdict (be aware it takes 3 months or more)
has convinced skeptics of the Bible's reliability, helped believers articulate their faith, and given them the vital facts they need to defend God's Word and lead others to faith in Jesus.
...... ........
This study is for anyone who has ever been stumped by arguments against Christianity or the Bible—or has wondered for themselves if the Bible's depiction of Jesus is true and not just a made-up fairytale."

Again, I will ask you to show me how the supernatural has been independently verified.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Since we are talking about myth let's get into it.

Dating creation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kylie]

Useless speculation with no support.

Start a thread about it and I'll be happy to go into more detail.

But until then, it's a bit rich for you to arbitrarily claim my position is unsupportable if you refuse to have a discussion about why I hold that position.

No one said you would but you screamed for evidence of the supernatural. I mentioned some like fulfilled prophesy. You can disbelieve all you like, but they are evidence. Period. Evidence does not depend on you voting it be evidence or not.

I find prophecies to be virtually useless as evidence.

• The prophecy can be written AFTER the event that fulfilled it.
• Prophecies are also often vague, so that lots of things can be interpreted to be the fulfillment of them.
• The prophecies can be about things that are likely to happen.
• The alleged fulfilment of the prophecy could have been embellished to make it fit the prophecy.
• The alleged event that fulfilled the prophecy might not actually have happened.
• The event to fulfil the prophecy could have been done by someone aware of the prophecy who wanted to make it come true.

Can you show that Biblical prophecy commits none of these errors?

Here's some guidelines I found on another discussion site about prophecies:

1. The prophecy must not be about something that is likely to happen anyway.
2. Where we have verified that the prophecy was written prior to the event that fulfilled it.
3. Where we have verified that the event that fulfilled it really took place in a way that fulfilled the prophecy.
4. The the fulfilling event was not done by someone simply to make the prophecy come true.
5. The prophecy is specific and is not open to interpretation.

If you can show that a prophecy meets these conditions, I'll accept it.

You need to verify they are not, despite most of the world knowing they are if you start claiming there is nothing but the natural. Spirits are real. God is a spirit. Angels have been witnessed. You cannot dispute it. All you can do is admit you don't know.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

You said, "The supernatural exists."

I said, "Prove it."

You can't turn around and say, "Prove it doesn't." You are the one who made the claim, you are the one who must support it.

Prove there is no God? He already proved there is. You have no way to prove anything why act as if you do? Did you really think that because you personally reject certain realities, that they suddenly go away? That seems a bit like the ostrich philosophy.

I didn't say God, I said Spirits.

Stop twisting my words. It's dishonest.

Say it all you like it is ridiculous and not true.

You don't understand science.

Science does not accept the supernatural because it insisted on natural only verification!

Why do you keep ignoring what I say? There's no point in trying to have a discussion with you if you are just going to dismiss everything that I say .

 

[Kylie]

For honest students and seekers and researchers only, the reference below.
For dishonest persons anywhere, forget it
"For more than forty years, the book Evidence That Demands a Verdict (be aware it takes 3 months or more)
has convinced skeptics of the Bible's reliability, helped believers articulate their faith, and given them the vital facts they need to defend God's Word and lead others to faith in Jesus.
...... ........
This study is for anyone who has ever been stumped by arguments against Christianity or the Bible—or has wondered for themselves if the Bible's depiction of Jesus is true and not just a made-up fairytale."

A quick Google search led me to a series of videos where an atheist went through and discusses the whole book. Here's the first video:

I haven't watched it, since it's almost an hour long and I honestly don't have time to watch something that long right now.

Of course, if you want a response to the book you recommend from me instead of from the guy I found on YouTube, feel free to buy a copy and send it to me. I'll be happy to provide you with a mailing address.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can show that a prophecy meets these conditions, I'll accept it.

Like this one?

1 Kings 13:1 And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense.
2 And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.

From Adam Clarke's Commentary:

This is one of the most remarkable and most singular prophecies in the Old Testament. It here most circumstantially foretells a fact which took place three hundred and forty years after the prediction; a fact which was attested by the two nations. The Jews, in whose behalf this prophecy was delivered, would guard it most sacredly; and it was the interest of the Israelites, against whom it was levelled, to impugn its authenticity and expose its falsehood, had this been possible. This prediction not only showed the knowledge of God, but his power. He gave, as it were, this warning to idolatry, that it might be on its guard, and defend itself against this Josiah whenever a person of that name should be found sitting on the throne of David; and no doubt it was on the alert, and took all prudent measures for its own defence; but all in vain, for Josiah, in the eighteenth year of his reign, literally accomplished this prophecy, as we may read, 2Ki 23:15-20.

 

[truthpls]

Start a thread about it and I'll be happy to go into more detail.

If I thought it wasn't already settled long ago I might look at that

But until then, it's a bit rich for you to arbitrarily claim my position is unsupportable if you refuse to have a discussion about why I hold that position.

I find prophecies to be virtually useless as evidence.

• The prophecy can be written AFTER the event that fulfilled it.

Woulda coulda shoulda In most cases that is not even a possibility

• Prophecies are also often vague, so that lots of things can be interpreted to be the fulfillment of them.

Being born in Israel, in a tiny town of a virgin is specific. Being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and then casting the silver to a certain specific place is specific. Having Jesus be here 490 years after a specific proclamation is specific. Rising from the dead is specific. Being buried in a rich man's tomb is specific...etc.

• The prophecies can be about things that are likely to happen.
• The alleged fulfilment of the prophecy could have been embellished to make it fit the prophecy.
• The alleged event that fulfilled the prophecy might not actually have happened.
• The event to fulfil the prophecy could have been done by someone aware of the prophecy who wanted to make it come true.

Yeah right, a virgin might decide to give birth in Bethlehem and flee to Egypt just to make the bible real. People could mosey on down to Jerusalem to destroy the temple that took 80 years to build with huge stones and not leave one stone standing on another just for kicks to make the bible look good...etc

Can you show that Biblical prophecy commits none of these errors?

Here's some guidelines I found on another discussion site about prophecies:

1. The prophecy must not be about something that is likely to happen anyway.

A virgin is not likely to give birth to God with us. A man is not likely to run around healing the deaf and blind and healing all manner of diseases.

1. Where we have verified that the prophecy was written prior to the event that fulfilled it.
2. Where we have verified that the event that fulfilled it really took place in a way that fulfilled the prophecy.
3. The the fulfilling event was not done by someone simply to make the prophecy come true.
4. The prophecy is specific and is not open to interpretation.

Scripture is always wrestled by unbelievers, they told Jesus He was possessed.

If you can show that a prophecy meets these conditions, I'll accept it.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

You said, "The supernatural exists."

I said, "Prove it."

Fulfilled prophesy proves it.

You can't turn around and say, "Prove it doesn't." You are the one who made the claim, you are the one who must support it.

In the case of those claiming to tell us where we came from using only that natural, yes, they should show that there is nothing else.

I didn't say God, I said Spirits.

He is a spirit

You don't understand science.

Yes I sure do. Science doesn't understand creation.