I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[AV1611VET]

If such evidence fails to favor one idea over another, it's not evidence.

In reality, which comes first?

Evidence? or the source of the evidence?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In reality, which comes first?

Evidence? or the source of the evidence?

But your list of evidence is only evidence of Christianity existing, not God Himself existing. It's evidence of the belief of God, not evidence of God Himself.

You can't provide evidence of the supernatural.

 

[Larniavc]

Stats show NDE are real.

No they don’t.

 

[Ophiolite]

No they don’t.

I am being pedantic, but NDEs are real, it's just that they are probably not what @Mountainmike thnks they are. I make the point because in arguing for anything like NDEs, ghosts, Bigfoot, UFOs, etc. a common technique is to overemphasise the importance of the observation that "something is happening, therefore . . . ", as if the existence of a puzzle was evidence for one explanation of the puzzle.

 

[AV1611VET]

But your list of evidence is only evidence of Christianity existing, not God Himself existing.

Which came first? God or Christianity?

 

[The_Order]

When I go to cross the street, I look to see if something's coming. This is a test of the hypothesis of: 'A car might take me out!'
It follows the scientific method.

There's a theory that's already been tested there also, which makes the prediction of (something like): 'It is likely that stepping in front a speeding car will result in a person being taken out'.

The scientific thinker above, used a well tested theory to make a prediction and then tested the related hypothesis, in order to eliminate the likelihood of being taken out by a speeding car before stepping out.
That person used their knowledge of science to realise a survivable outcome.
Sailors take analogous actions in order to mitigate the effects of dangerous storm situations. It serves them well in the real world.

I don't forgot scientific theories that make predictions that have been well tested in objective reality .. like when I go to cross a busy street.
It has served me well throughout my life ... on countless situations .. I'm still here .. I'm still alive .. and I like knowing how to stay alive.

Yes, this thing you are calling a hypothesis is based on observation, in other words, on knowledge. Knowledge, not knowing and creating imaginary scenarios are entirely different things. When you are crossing the street, you are under stress, and you use knowledge to deal with that stress. Based on your previous observations, you know that cars pass along the road, so you check to see if a car is coming, for example, you dont wonder if a submarine might be approaching. Or you look to your right and left, you dont look up.


The "sailor on land" syndrome I am talking about refers to the human tendency to drift into imaginary thoughts when in a comfort zone. A sailor caught in a storm praying to God (something I have actually witnessed) is the result of the brain automatically turning to information it has registered. But once the storm is over and he reaches land, he slowly starts going back to his old, nonsensical imaginary thoughts.

 

[The_Order]

Through observation. There is no evidence - direct or indirect - of any intelligence being involved in them. Nor of any intelligence being required for them.

Unless you'd like to suggest some?

As for me - ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

What you actually need to do is ask your own brain. Whatever we ask it, it brings us relevant answers, beyond that, there is really nothing else you can do. The brain groups many different situations under common categories based on shared features. For example, a machine is a form of order and so is a natural phenomenon, the brain automatically places both in the "order" category. Similarly, it categorizes both a crow dropping a nut from above to crack it and a human building a machine under "intelligence."


What you need to do here is focus on seeing the red car in traffic. If you focus on discovering the orders(or systems/designs/patterns) around you, you will notice that everything you observe has an underlying order and is part of a greater system. And then your brain will bring you the insight that an order could be designed by an intelligence.

 

[BCP1928]

Which came first? God or Christianity?

What difference does it make? They seem to have very little to do with one another these days.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Which came first? God or Christianity?

In the matter of the list, it would have be the belief in God, since you can't have an organized religion without a belief system for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What difference does it make?

Ask an atheist, then a Christian.

Then compare answers.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the matter of the list, it would have be the belief in God, since you can't have an organized religion without a belief system for it.

I'm asking you personally.

Which came first? God or Christianity?

If you believe God came first, why are you disagreeing about His effects?

James says that faith (in Him), without works, is dead, being alone.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm asking you personally.

Which came first? God or Christianity?

And I'm answering in the context of the list you have, which deals solely with Christianity.

If you believe God came first, why are you disagreeing about His effects?

I'm not disagreeing about His effects. I'm disagreeing with your list which is solely about Christianity, not God.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you focus on discovering the orders(or systems/designs/patterns) around you, you will notice that everything you observe has an underlying order and is part of a greater system. And then your brain will bring you the insight that an order could be designed by an intelligence.

1. I obsserve chaotic systems that are not ordered.
2. I agree that order could be designed by an intelligence, but that is not the same as saying that intelligence is needed to create order.

 

[Tinker Grey]

but that is not the same as saying that intelligence is needed to create order.

Indeed. Is a god needed to superintend each and every snowflake?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The "sailor on land" syndrome I am talking about refers to the human tendency to drift into imaginary thoughts when in a comfort zone. A sailor caught in a storm praying to God (something I have actually witnessed) is the result of the brain automatically turning to information it has registered. But once the storm is over and he reaches land, he slowly starts going back to his old, nonsensical imaginary thoughts.

Talk about getting things backward. The prayer of desperation is what people do when their own actions can no longer change things. People who pray in desperate situations and then stop when normality returns (the danger is over) is NOT about "going back" to imaginary thoughts. It is merely a mechanism for coping with what cannot be changed by ordinary means. It tells us nothing about if the prayer was successful or if they are a true believer or if there is any god to receive that prayer at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Talk about getting things backward. The prayer of desperation is what people do when their own actions can no longer change things. People who pray in desperate situations and then stop when normality returns (the danger is over) is NOT about "going back" to imaginary thoughts. It is merely a mechanism for coping with what cannot be changed by ordinary means. It tells us nothing about if the prayer was successful or if they are a true believer or if there is any god to receive that prayer at all.

Keep in mind that you're responding to a Muslim here. They tend to get a lot of things backward.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Keep in mind that you're responding to a Muslim here. They tend to get a lot of things backward.

Their prayer of desperation argument is no different than a Christian might make.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I'm answering in the context of the list you have, which deals solely with Christianity.

There would be no Christianity without God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There would be no Christianity without God.

And you nor anyone can produce evidence of God Himself existing, only that the belief of God exists.

That's the unfortunate nature of dealing with the supernatural.

 

[BCP1928]

And you nor anyone can produce evidence of God Himself existing, only that the belief of God exists.

That's the unfortunate nature of dealing with the supernatural.

On the contrary, it is very fortunate. If it could work, demonstrating God's existence empirically would be a very dangerous thing to try, because the God you might find evidence for is not guaranteed to be the God you want. No intelligent theologian would ever attempt it, knowing that the only good theological propositions are those which are non-falsifiable