Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[Aussie Pete]

Don't lie.

You claim that there is no God. In order to make that claim you must know everything, which is an attribute of God. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Christianity gives meaning to life. I don't care what other religions say. I also don't care what science has to say.

Religion can give life meaning but you don't need a god to give life meaning. I determine what gives my life meaning.

Science can only observe what is there and make guesses as to why. The most brilliant can get it wrong. Einstein rejected quantum theory.

Yes, and every single time science has got something wrong it was corrected later by science. Not religion. That is the greatness of how science determines what is true.

I have the utmost respect for Jordan Peterson. He has a great ability to skewer irrational false narratives such as white privilege and male domination. However, even he falls for the trap of science's inability to do more than observe. He stated, correctly, that people are happier when they are helping to improve the lives of others. This is, of course, very much a part of Christianity. He also went on to say that it was something that people evolved with to make for better societies. Rubbish. If this evolved then it is hard wired and would be normal and natural for everyone. It's pretty obvious that tribalism, self preservation, self interest and selfishness in general are just as much part of the human condition.

Jordan Peterson knows the Bible well. Yet he comes to a "scientific" conclusion. This is not surprising considering his profession. But his conclusion is incorrect. And his answer to the problem is correct, but only if his conclusion is correct. If his original premise was correct then there would be no problem to address. The Bible addresses the human condition and explains why and gives the solution. And people generally don't want to know.

Until you can give good evidence that the bible is true, then all of this is just assertion. Psychology gives answers to the human condition, so does Islam, so does Buddhism etc. Why have you chosen to believe the bible as the true source of describing the human condition?

Science can tell us what. It cannot tell us why. Science cannot prove or disprove the reality of God. And when God came to earth in the form of man, He was rejected by most. God states that the creation is sufficient evidence for His existence. It was enough for me.

By labeling nature as "creation" you smuggle in a creator that you did not give good evidence exists.

Why are you convinced that nature is good evidence that a god exists?

 

[Aussie Pete]

No, he didn't reject it, he thought it was incomplete - he got the Nobel prize for his pioneering work on quantum theory (the photoelectric effect).

Hmm, it seems to me that he thought it was useless. My understanding is that it was Neils Bohr and Max Planck who both won the Nobel award. Planck won it in 1918, Bohr 1922. Planck was the pioneer, Einstein the sceptic.

American Museum of Natural History

"Newspapers were quick to share Einstein's skepticism of the "new physics" with the general public. Einstein's paper, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" prompted Niels Bohr to write a rebuttal. Modern experiments have upheld Quantum Theory despite Einstein's objections. However, the EPR paper introduced topics that form the foundation for much of today's physics research.

Einstein and Niels Bohr began disputing Quantum Theory at the prestigious 1927 Solvay Conference, attended by top physicists of the day. By most accounts of this public debate, Bohr was the victor."

 

[SkyWriting]

Very convenient.

It only makes sense. Imagine if prayers could be answered as one demanded, the Super bowl would always be a tie and everyone would live until they got stinky.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

That is quite a charge.
I'm betting that you cannot support that at all. Most people don't actually care if your preferred deity exists or not.

You may want to visit some prominent wittings on Secularism here is a snippet of one:

Religion has always been a force to reckon with in the scheme of things from time immemorial.
The cultures of societies, organizations and individuals have been in the most part, influenced by
it. In other words, religion took the center stage in informing, explaining, authenticating and
legitimating human actions in the society. It was apparent as a centripetal force from where the
society drew its strength, sense of meaning and direction.
However, with the emergence of science and empiricism, rationalization, industrialization,
urbanization, and indeed modernity, there appeared to be a change in societal worldview as
religion purportedly started to lose its all-round grip on the society. In the words of Taylor
(2007:560) as cited in Ritzer and Stepnisky (2014), the “death of God” appeared inevitable. This
process is said to be a direct consequence of modernization. A lot of phenomena that were
explained religiously were given more empirical and rational explanations. This situation gave
birth to what is generally known as secularization. In a sense, secularization has to do with the
views that religion has declined, lost its influence on the society and as a matter of fact, would
gradually fizzle out. The latter is the prediction of most of the founding fathers of sociology of
religion which include August Comte, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim.
As an introductory endeavour, this chapter will attempt to give a concise meaning of
secularization, discuss the varying views of the proponents of the secularization theory, x-ray the
processes of secularization and finally discuss some arguments against it".
The Secularization Thesis

 

[Aussie Pete]

Religion can give life meaning but you don't need a god to give life meaning. I determine what gives my life meaning.

Yes, and every single time science has got something wrong it was corrected later by science. Not religion. That is the greatness of how science determines what is true.

Until you can give good evidence that the bible is true, then all of this is just assertion. Psychology gives answers to the human condition, so does Islam, so does Buddhism etc. Why have you chosen to believe the bible as the true source of describing the human condition?

By labeling nature as "creation" you smuggle in a creator that you did not give good evidence exists.

Why are you convinced that nature is good evidence that a god exists?

Do we have to go through this again? No, I won't. It does not matter what anyone says, you will find a reason to reject it.
The Bible has not been revised ever. The reason is simple. God got it right first time.

Just maybe this former atheist may help you understand.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You claim that there is no God. In order to make that claim you must know everything, which is an attribute of God. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.

That too is incorrect.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you shave? Every time you look in the mirror, there is repeatable evidence that God exists. You refuse to accept it. That is no one's responsibility but your own.

When I look in the mirror I see evidence that I exist. I am not a God.

 

[tas8831]

It's almost as if you're claiming evolution is not science.

It is one of his M.O.s, despite his admissions that he doesn't understand the science.

 

[tas8831]

I've had many experiences that you call supernatural.

Documentation, please.

You've already decided. You believe that you know all there is to know about all there is to know.

Projection.

Not many atheists are internally consistent with their beliefs.

Many creationists pretend to possess knowledge of others that they cannot possibly possess. What was it you wrote - You believe that you know all there is to know about all there is to know.

Your existence is pointless. It has no meaning. It's like dropping a pebble into the ocean. Just ripples that disappear without a trace. Your words also mean nothing. Neither do your actions. And no doubt you will argue to the contrary.

It is truly sad and pathetic that you think this way. Not to mention amazingly condescending.

I've not heard a convincing argument from an atheist yet.

I do not think you are equipped to deal with the arguments you receive.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmm, it seems to me that he thought it was useless. My understanding is that it was Neils Bohr and Max Planck who both won the Nobel award. Planck won it in 1918, Bohr 1922. Planck was the pioneer, Einstein the sceptic.

American Museum of Natural History

"Newspapers were quick to share Einstein's skepticism of the "new physics" with the general public. Einstein's paper, "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" prompted Niels Bohr to write a rebuttal. Modern experiments have upheld Quantum Theory despite Einstein's objections. However, the EPR paper introduced topics that form the foundation for much of today's physics research.

Einstein and Niels Bohr began disputing Quantum Theory at the prestigious 1927 Solvay Conference, attended by top physicists of the day. By most accounts of this public debate, Bohr was the victor."

Nobel prizes are awarded every year. Planck won it in 1918, Bohr won it in 1922. Einstein won the Nobel prize in 1921 for his services to theoretical physics and discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, a quantum mechanical phenomenon.

Einstein thought QM was correct, but needed deeper explanation to remove the probabilistic aspects and explain entanglement. He thought hidden variables would resolve it. The clue that Einstein thought QM was incomplete is in the title of his paper.

 

[tas8831]

Do you shave? Every time you look in the mirror, there is repeatable evidence that God exists. You refuse to accept it. That is no one's responsibility but your own.

A rather child-like "argument", but one that I see very frequently from the pseudocertainty crowd.

 

[tas8831]

I posted 'beginner level evidence' after praying for a friend with cancer(several tumours) in the thyroid.
The hospital insisted in removing the thyroid and found no sign of cancer in the removed organ. In 2000 operations they had never seen such a thing. They had pre op and post op biopsy to prove it. I have posted the medical records.

And you attribute this to prayer?

Seems fantastically arbitrary and inconsequential.

Have you prayed for world peace? Wouldn't that be a bit more consequential?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It only makes sense. Imagine if prayers could be answered as one demanded, the Super bowl would always be a tie and everyone would live until they got stinky.

So the secret is that the world looks just the same as if prayers are not answered, and those that believe in the power of prayer can find instances where prayer coincides with a beneficial outcome. Got it.

 

[tas8831]

I doubt if anyone being genuinely used in this way would have any interest in some 'experiment' we are too busy seeking to do what has been appointed.

Scared?

 

[tas8831]

Healings are appointed - not all who pray are given the faith to see them happen.

What a happy coincidence.

Prayer "answered'? "PRAISE JESUS! total proof that prayer works and God is real!!!!"

Prayer not answered? "Oh well, poop happens. Maybe you are a sinner after all... Part of the plan... etc."

 

[tas8831]

One (among many) reason that I do not believe claims of 'miracles':

 

[tas8831]

Really? So unless you have that you don't believe anything that someone wrote down about historical happenings, events, people etc. and only if there were original signed dated statements from eyewitnesses? Do you apply this to history as a whole or just the bible? If so have you verified these? These are rhetorical questions.

We have the Bible and then we have archeology ... and are still "digging in the dirt".

Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible. Here are just a few examples ...

Wow - that is EXACTLY what appears at the blog you linked to!

HAVE YOU WONDERED: Is the Bible historically accurate?

I note that the essay you linked to has exactly ZERO links or citations to original source material, research reports, etc.

IOW - it is all just empty assertion.

And you believed it.

Can you prove to me the Bible isn't the inspired Word of God?

Can YOU prove it is?

Keep in mind, if you are going to refer to that same link, I will just laugh.

 

[tas8831]

So, to me, the rainbow is God's interaction with nature and a sign to the world. For others, it's just a natural phenomenon, pretty to look at but with no meaning.

So for others, they see it as it really is.
Got it.

I would recounted many instances of a personal interaction with God, including direct answers to prayers, instant miraculous healing,

Can't wait for the objective documentation of these things.

Scientist see only with natural eyes and interpret with natural reasoning. This produces some of the most ridiculous conclusions.

I cannot wait for your examples! With evidence that these conclusions really are "most ridiculous".

 

[tas8831]

So when I was suddenly interrupted in the middle of a meal, dropped everything, called a cab, rushed across the city in urgency, arrived at exactly the time my friend was dying of a heart attack, prayed for her and she was fully healed in two minutes. This was a co-incidence? Cognitive bias? Really...

Sounds made-up.