Don't blame Goomba he is epistemologically retarded from likely being raised religious so he can't separate what is a good argument from a bad argument, and good evidence from bad evidence. Let me explain this in simple terms if one makes the claim of something extraordinary then it demands evidence as extraordinary to prove the claim. If you told me you went to the local coffee shop and had a fine cup of java, and it was awesome its not odd so I would take that claim on face value. If you said you died and rose from the dead I would likely ask for evidence of said claim your death certificate, proof you are alive and witnesses to question. See the difference. God, miracles and such are extraordinary claims to Atheists.
I did and I can't understand why you are so aggressive about this. Why can't believers and non-believers co-exist?
Nothing like a little misrepresentation. the academy of science does not consider there to be empirical evidence of the existence of god. the use of the word revelation does not mean in any way that cosmology, paleontology etc etc. are "revealed" in the same fashion as religious scriptures were supposedly revealed by god. I agree that there are many scientists et.al. who believe that "god" created the universe - its a position wholly lacking in any evidence either way. OTOH, there are few scientists who believe in the creation mythology of both the universe and ourselves.
The National Academy of Sciences had stated that there are NUMEROUS evidences that POINT to Theistic Evolution - CREATION (of the universe), by God! Big difference! No one talks about miracles, or anything supernatural! The NAS specifically stated PHYSICAL universe! In this case the term, "revealed" is used as defined: to make known! What do you think "discoveries" are? If science says that the evidences were revealed by cosmology, paleontology etc..., then it means they were observed, analyzed, studied and experimented! They discovered those evidences in those respective fields of sciences......otherwise the NAS wouldn't be stupid to stick out its neck and declare something based on assumption, or half-baked research! Your opinion is irrelevant. I refuted your statement on the basis of what science had officially stated. http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
Tosca tried this on another thread.....he contradicted himself saying- "Science says there are 'evidences' that God created the Universe"....then he says... "Science doesn't say God exists." Okay....so how can there be "evidence" that a non-existent being created the Universe????
The same reason you can't see green through red lenses. You want physical evidence of the non-physical, which is nonsensical.
Which opens the door to ANYTHING and EVERYTHING being possible. Zombie Aliens? Sure - just cause you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they aren't walking right next to you, right now - they are just invisible.
That is simply not true. There is absolutely no empirical scientific evidence ANYWHERE that indicates the existence of a supernatural being outwith of both time and space. There is absolutely NO empirical scientific evidence of a supernatural plane of existence. It seems you aren't all that familiar with how science actually works. If you want to play semantic games you'll lose. As I clearly stated, the use of the term "reveal" in your quote is not the same meaning as its usage relating to religious scriptures. transitive verb 1: to make known through divine inspiration. 2: to make (something secret or hidden) publicly or generally known <reveal a secret> 3: to open up to view : display <the uncurtained window revealed a cluttered room> Perhaps you can point to a SINGLE piece of observed scientific evidence that supports the claim for gods existence? Nah, you'll simply deflect or post something psuedo scientific that does no such thing. Typical.. I am stunned that some people think it is that easy to deliver proof of god. Why is it that many staunch believers clutch such misrepresentations of science so dearly? Oh right of course, they got nuthin' else. I am in agreement many scientists are deists. You should look up the term, it doesn't mean believing in ludicrous religious dogma and mythology.
Lack of evidence does not mean He doesn't exist; only atheists believe in this unsubstantiated presumption. They take it with faith. What exactly is mythology?
He can't. No one can. This is the issue. It's one think to say you have faith but another to your religion is fact. AA
That's basically what I believe too, but I still don't know how it is testable...which is what makes it an actual hypothesis and not just speculation. Are you sure we're both talking about the same God?
What about the bible? God supposedly did a bunch of stuff, but there does not seem to be any evidence of it. Why is that?
You're simply giving your opinion.....which aren't even supported by anything. I'll have to ignore you for now Jonsa....until you've got something worth responding to. Furthermore..... Who says I'm referring to it that way? I even said it's not a reference to miracles. In fact....I'm using it in relation to scientific discoveries - so #2 would be the definition applicable. That's why I asked, what do you think "discoveries" are?
Precisely my original point in response to your emphasis on the word in the quote you used as "evidences". Scientific discoveries are nothing at all like religious revelations.
I suppose one could engage in sophistry and claim that a lack of faith is a faith. I completely agree that "lack of faith" has no "substantiation", but it is hardly a presumption, I'd say more of a deduction. History's pantheon of Gods is the place to start if you really need an answer.
So if you look at an object through a red lens, and it looks black, ie, it's green or black, what does that mean for your justification to believe in whether it is black or green?
God can only be proven by the individual. If you choose not to seek God, He will allow that. If you seek God, He will not only reveal Himself to you, He will reward you!
