I don't understand what point you are making. I'm not sure you do either.
While there is no evidence for Santa to exist except in the minds of children in the form of a lie, there is evidence for God's existence.
Note also that if a criminal misuses scientific equipment, research, and so forth, to 'prove' something is or was true that is not true, well, it happens.....Nice try, but no. The point isn't that science isn't useful, it's that the scientific method is not the only means by which we can know things. Are you going to actually try to defend your position or not?
Not according to the Bible, the Creator, nor the Ekklesia.Look you can mix and match whatever terms you want to use. The Bible is a harmonized polytheistic book.
What, in your view, is the best evidence for God's existence?
Not even close. Are you legitimately confused by what I'm saying, or are you just trying to be clever?That's like saying.. science doesn't provide us with all knowledge, therefore, fairies exist.
The point is that your position on how we can know things is self-refuting. You made the claim that scientific inquiry is the only way we can have sure knowledge of anything. The problem with your position is that that claim itself is not scientific in nature. We cannot take that claim and test it, formulate hypotheses, or otherwise use the scientific method to evaluate its truth value (and even if we could, using the scientific method to evaluate the viability of the scientific method would be question begging). Using your position -- that we can only be sure of knowledge by using science -- then we must conclude that we cannot be sure that the above claim is true, and accordingly we should be skeptical of any truth claims it produces about reality. Of course, then the foundation of your own epistemology crumbles.What about my position that needs defending? You are the one who BELIEVES, right?
The problem with your position is that that claim itself is not scientific in nature. We cannot take that claim and test it, formulate hypotheses, or otherwise use the scientific method to evaluate its truth value (and even if we could, using the scientific method to evaluate the viability of the scientific method would be question begging). Using your position -- that we can only be sure of knowledge by using science -- then we must conclude that we cannot be sure that the above claim is true, and accordingly we should be skeptical of any truth claims it produces about reality. Of course, then the foundation of your own epistemology crumbles.
In short, again, your epistemology is self-refuting and should be abandoned.
Well, when I look at the world and how it is, it must have been formed. How trees grow and how water moves, how the stars are held in the night's sky.. all of this speaks to God's very existence. How babies are formed in the womb and also how scripture is also connected to His Creation. There's just no way that all this happened by accident, that would cause disorder, but we have order in the world. Everything has a purpose.
Sorry if this method has been suggested by somebody else in the thread, I would find changing ideas about Santa in the past versus today and then claim that a magical Santa living in the past and living today is not consistent with those changing ideas.
Here is the Wikipedia on Santa's history:
Santa Claus - Wikipedia
Let's try this again. You have made the following claim: scientific inquiry is the only method by which we can have sure knowledge of reality. I responded by asking how you know that scientific inquiry is the only method by which we can have sure knowledge of anything.Are you saying that reason is circular? You can’t claim that reasonable conversation is better than gibberish because you have to use your reasoning skills to make a determination in the first place?
I haven't said a thing about faith so far.and then you come to FAITH? Problem of faith, of course, is that you can believe in anything by faith.
Not an argument. Try reading through the above part of this post a couple times. If you still don't understand the problem with your epistemological position, we can go through it step by step.I can’t tell if you’re joking or being serious. Amazing conclusion
I meant everything that is made not by human hands.when you look at world, which parts are you considering? Desert? Jungle?
Of course, we are not here by accident. We are a product of survival, hundreds of thousands of years of wars and disease and calamity. Our ancestors lived long enough to procreate and nurture their offspring and so on. If any of our ancestors died before giving life to their kids, we’d not be here today.
heck, it’s possible our tribes were at war with each other thousands of years ago.
I can appreciate the design argument but I disagree with creationism. There is too much evidence for evolution, although there are Christians who accept evolution as well.
Sorry if this method has been suggested by somebody else in the thread, I would find changing ideas about Santa in the past versus today and then claim that a magical Santa living in the past and living today is not consistent with those changing ideas.
Do you only accept Christian miracles or also those of other religions and faiths?
Also, Christ does not claim to be God. This is done by inference. Not everyone who follows the New Testament accepts the proposition that Christ is God or claimed to be God.
We are way outside the scope of Santa Claus, but I would just say that Elohim and El and Yahweh are various Gods that have been absorbed into the Old Testament.
I think you might as well claim that Thor, Zeus and Vishnu are all names for Jesus. It will have the explanatory power.
Now, how many Gods do you believe in? When you are in heaven, how many thrones will there be and will you see the Father and Jesus sitting on same throne or different thrones? Will you see two one figure in heaven?
I agree, but would propose that, despite widespread opinion to the contrary, the Bible does not teach that there exists an eternal hell.How can the beautiful life on earth be a product of a designer who created an eternal hell?
On balance, I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Jesus, at least as represented in the gospels, did indeed believe He was "God" incarnate.BigV said:Also, Christ does not claim to be God. This is done by inference. Not everyone who follows the New Testament accepts the proposition that Christ is God or claimed to be God.