Why the Bible is true... (Revised June 2015)

[1over137]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

[Audie]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

Flipping it back to you a bit, I dont know where your beliefs lie in the spectrum from
literal six day andama nd eve flood etc, thru theistic evo etc.

Lets say for a minute that its that you accept all of creation taking place in the 6 days mentioned.

How do you imagine that would seem, if the ovewhelmingly obvious demonstration stood before you that it was not so?

[PaulSacramento]

Sometimes skeptics need to realize something that they view as a given in science:
That to prove something that can't be directly observed, you may need multiple lines of evidence.

To prove evolution or the age of the universe, multiple lines of evidence are used because no SINGLE one is full proof.
God also falls into the same category ( since He can't be observed directly) and as such then multiple lines of evidence exist so that, even if one or two MAY be refuted, the culmination leads to the correct interpretation of the evidence.

I am not a generic "skeptic".

In all kindness, please dont try to give me science lessons if you dont understand that
nothing is ever proven in science.

But sure, multiple lines of evidence are good; it increases the probability that the
data is not a fluke, or the hypothesis wrong.

People have followed what they took to be evidence for various gods and ended up with a lot of different gods.

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and while it doesn't make me a scientist, don't speak to me with a tone that implies that I don't understand science.
And we have already shown you that science is EXACTLY in the field of proving things.
If you believe otherwise then YOUR view of why science exists is quite screw up.

And by the way, don't flatter yourself you ARE a generic skeptic.

[PaulSacramento]

That does not disprove God.

Indeed and the whole "multiple dimensions" and "multiple universe" hypothesis can actually be used as evidence for God.

[PaulSacramento]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

So, it is correct to say, that your position is, that yo simply do not know. You do not know there is or there is not God. Plus you believe it is impossible to prove/disprove. Right?

Short of a god showing up to announce he is it, I say it is impossible to know, to prove.

So, according to you, personal revelation is proof of God's existence?

[Audie]

Sometimes skeptics need to realize something that they view as a given in science:
That to prove something that can't be directly observed, you may need multiple lines of evidence.

To prove evolution or the age of the universe, multiple lines of evidence are used because no SINGLE one is full proof.
God also falls into the same category ( since He can't be observed directly) and as such then multiple lines of evidence exist so that, even if one or two MAY be refuted, the culmination leads to the correct interpretation of the evidence.

I am not a generic "skeptic".

In all kindness, please dont try to give me science lessons if you dont understand that
nothing is ever proven in science.

But sure, multiple lines of evidence are good; it increases the probability that the
data is not a fluke, or the hypothesis wrong.

People have followed what they took to be evidence for various gods and ended up with a lot of different gods.

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering and while it doesn't make me a scientist, don't speak to me with a tone that implies that I don't understand science.
And we have already shown you that science is EXACTLY in the field of proving things.
If you believe otherwise then YOUR view of why science exists is quite screw up.

And by the way, don't flatter yourself you ARE a generic skeptic.

No tone was intended nor present. How tactful must I be? The statement about science doing proof is simply false. If I spoke of basketball helmets and football rinks, it would be a sign I dont know basic sports.

Your post is unresponsive to the second half of what I wrote.

Could you tone down the personal remarks?

[Audie]

That does not disprove God.

Hi 1/137

Of course it doesnt. I believe that proof of existence or non existence is impossible.

So, it is correct to say, that your position is, that yo simply do not know. You do not know there is or there is not God. Plus you believe it is impossible to prove/disprove. Right?

Short of a god showing up to announce he is it, I say it is impossible to know, to prove.

So, according to you, personal revelation is proof of God's existence?

What is a "personal revelation"?

[PaulSacramento]

Look at what you wrote Audie, there is tone and condescension there:

I am not a generic "skeptic".

Yes, you are, your arguments are generic and typical hence you are and writing what you wrote is the same as writing:
"Don't think for a minute I am your typical skeptic, I am far too smart for that"

In all kindness, please dont try to give me science lessons if you dont understand that
nothing is ever proven in science.

That is a condescending remark, it suggest that I don't have a basic understanding of science then it states that NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN in science when science is ALL ABOUT proving things !

[PaulSacramento]

Science:
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

When you say that science proves nothing what you are trying to say is that science is open that any point, whatever is known to be can be changed or over ruled:

Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it.

Which is fine BUT lets not play around with words.

Science proves things like water freezes at 0 celcius and boils at 100 and where gravity is present, things that go up, come down, etc, etc.

So say that science is not in the business of proving things is like saying that science doesn't care about HOW things work, it simply is not correct and used by people that don't want to be held accountable for mistakes.
Reality:
if 1+ 1 = 2, then mathematical science has proven that 1+ 1= 2

[PaulSacramento]

[


What is a "personal revelation"?

God showing up.

[1over137]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

Flipping it back to you a bit, I dont know where your beliefs lie in the spectrum from
literal six day andama nd eve flood etc, thru theistic evo etc.

Lets say for a minute that its that you accept all of creation taking place in the 6 days mentioned.

How do you imagine that would seem, if the ovewhelmingly obvious demonstration stood before you that it was not so?

My creation position is: undecided.

Overwhelmingly obvious demonstration that it was not so?
Well, if obvious (and even overwhelmingly obvious) then I would change my mind, I suppose.

[Audie]

Science:
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

When you say that science proves nothing what you are trying to say is that science is open that any point, whatever is known to be can be changed or over ruled:

Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it.

Which is fine BUT lets not play around with words.

Science proves things like water freezes at 0 celcius and boils at 100 and where gravity is present, things that go up, come down, etc, etc.

So say that science is not in the business of proving things is like saying that science doesn't care about HOW things work, it simply is not correct and used by people that don't want to be held accountable for mistakes.
Reality:
if 1+ 1 = 2, then mathematical science has proven that 1+ 1= 2

I invite you to try boiling water at 100C. Let us know if you succeed.

A dictionary is not a very good source for science, generally. None of what you posted says that science proves things.

Math is not science.

UC Berkeley..



MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing



Psychology today..https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

[1over137]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

God is. Of course. He likes the humble ones.

Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Proverbs 16:18, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalms 25:9, Psalms 18:27, Proverbs 11:2, Matthew 23:12, James 4:10, ...

[Audie]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

God is. Of course. He likes the humble ones.

Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Proverbs 16:18, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalms 25:9, Psalms 18:27, Proverbs 11:2, Matthew 23:12, James 4:10, ...

I see the eye of a needle up ahead.

[Danieltwotwenty]

How do you imagine, God would show up, if he was? What would you expect?

I dont speculate on that. IF there is a god, and he she it cared to make their presence clear, Im sure they are fully capable of it.

God is. Of course. He likes the humble ones.

Proverbs 3:34, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5, Proverbs 16:18, 2 Chronicles 7:14, Psalms 25:9, Psalms 18:27, Proverbs 11:2, Matthew 23:12, James 4:10, ...

I see the eye of a needle up ahead.

Hint, walk through sideways, works every time.