AV1611VET said:
As I stated before, Jesus took all the proof of God's existence back to Heaven with Him, but He left enough evidence behind that we, through faith, can come to the conclusion that "God is".
Why would he do that? What purpose does it serve to want everyone to believe in God, then take all of the evidence away? How did he take this evidence? What exactly was this evidence? How do you know he took the evidence? It sounds like a lot of unsupported conjecture. Meanwhile, many Christians continue to proclaim they have evidence. Are they proclaiming that Jesus didn't do what you claim he did?
AV1611VET said:
Beastt said:
Faith is nothing more than believing whatever one wishes to believe regardless of the evidence.
Not according to Hebrews 11:1
Hebrews 11:1 said:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Perhaps you should read it again. That's exactly what it's telling you; that "faith" is the substance of what you hope for. In other words, it is belief in anything you hope might be true. And you'll notice that hope doesn't require evidence.
AV1611VET said:
Kinda like "air has no mass" --- right? Or maybe "phlogiston"? You know --- that sorta stuff that scientists swore by?
Phlogiston theory never even made it out of the 17th century, it was defeated in 1753. You, like others, seem to think that if science isn't perfect, then it can never be correct. And despite this assumption, you sit at a computer, tap out your responses and think nothing about the fact that in seconds, your thoughts and ideas arrive in the form of electronic pulses, to be recorded as a series of flux transistions on a platter of magnetic media for the whole world to see. That was brought to you by the work of science. You clearly don't understand what science is and isn't. Science isn't a proclamation of perfect knowledge. It is a means of observation, conclusion and testing. The testing never stops which is why failed scientific ideas eventually fail. Meanwhile, you insist on believing in a book which proclaims that the sun and moon reside in the Earth's atmosphere, that plants can grow without heat and light and that the sun orbits the Earth.
AV1611VET said:
Oh, I think with a lab rat I might be able to bribe one or two.
I take this to mean that you have no productive comment.
AV1611VET said:
My --- they're walking on thin ice, aren't they?
Yes they are! And that is much the point. If they deviate a fraction from the scientific method, then they're not practicing science anymore. And since there are always others adhering strictly to the scientific method, any conclusions drawn outside of the scientific method are subject to immediate scrutiny and eventual failure.
AV1611VET said:
And what (or who) determines the evidence's "credibility"?
It is the nature of the evidence itself. That often proclaimed as evidence by Christians is their own personal experience. But such experience can't be differentiated from the same kinds of proclaimed experience offered by those of other religions which believe in other gods. The experiences can't be tested or examined, they're purely subjective. And subjective evidence, by it's very nature, isn't credible.
AV1611VET said:
So "defined" they defined that air has no mass, and defined phlogiston?
No, they observed that air allowed other physical matter to pass through it and concluded, (wrongly), that since two objects of mass cannot occupy the same space, that one of the objects must be devoid of mass. They also noticed that when any flammable material was burned, it burned only for a limited time and changed form. So they developed hypotheses based upon these observations. But you're reaching well back into the history of modern science to dredge up these old, failed theories. You have to understand that peer review was very difficult in those days because information didn't travel nearly as fast or as far. Far fewer people were trained in the scientific method. So it took longer for the peer-review process to filter out theories by showing them to contrast one or more pieces of evidence.
AV1611VET said:
Again, the Holy Spirit's job here right now is NOT to leave an audit trail --- but that's about to end.
It's been "about to end" for 2,000 years now. Don't hold your breath.
AV1611VET said:
No --- blind faith is --- real faith is as I quoted above.
What you quoted above, (Hebrews 11:1), is the very definition of blind faith, "the substance of things hoped for". If you hope for it, then you believe it and do so independently of the evidence. How much more blindly can any belief be held?
AV1611VET said:
Oh, now it's a "route of evidence". Before, when they were getting government grants, they were searching for "objective evidence". Now that they've looked and looked and looked and looked --- they're looking for a "route"?
That's pretty good. If the car doesn't show up --- just claim that you've been looking down the wrong road.
As I stated, if they find the evidence they're looking for, then the science can start. Until then, they're working with only moderate evidence, (photos of UFOs, video clips, reports from radar operators, often with video of the radar tracking, etc.), in the hope of finding more evidence to follow.
Meanwhile you criticize them for engaging in a search for evidence and you base your beliefs on evidence you proclaim doesn't exist and hasn't existed in your lifetime because Jesus took it with him. And while you claim SETI has
"looked and looked and looked and looked", you continue to spout the same claims that have failed for all of the past 2,000 years, without evidence and without anything but blind-faith to offer for support.
AV1611VET said:
Haven't given up yet, huh? Like they did on God? Well, that's good. They have "faith" that someday an ET will say "hello".
Are you attempting to imply that there isn't any evidence supporting the idea that extraterrestrials might exist? If you are, then I feel it appropriate to point out that there are mountains of evidence. We have photographs, video clips, NASA footage, radar images, radiation burns left on the ground and many other bits of evidence. That doesn't mean that extraterrestrials do exist but it is the job of science to utilize the existing evidence to attempt to draw a rational conclusion. And if certain research programs choose to search for additional evidence, they're not violating any scientific principles in doing so.
AV1611VET said:
What part of "burden of proof" didn't you understand? Anytime someone proclaims the existance of anything, yet can't produce any evidence for what they proclaim, they hold the burden to produce substantiation for their claim. If I tell you there is a 40-foot giant in your closet, it's not up to you to prove there isn't. If I can't provide evidence for the 40-foot giant, I continue to hold the burden of providing substantiation for its existence. Were it not for that simple principle, anything anyone wanted to imagine would be proclaimed to exist until it was demonstrated not to exist. That would be a tremendous waste of time. So until you can provide evidence, you shouldn't expect that anyone aside from yourself holds any responsibility to address your assertions. Support them or consider them defeated by their own lack of support.
AV1611VET said:
Translation: when someone finds something, scientists will be there to take the credit.
No, when someone finds something, scientists will be there to observe it and through that observation, to determine its nature. Science isn't a process of being the first to proclaim a discovery. It's about learning the nature of reality.
AV1611VET said:
Don't call me until you find and trap Big Foot first --- THEN we'll be there to get our picture in Scientific American.
Science fame isn't won by claiming credit for the discovery of others. But science isn't about following clueless trails either. You believe you have a clueless trail and you attempt to fault science for not following it. But without clues, (evidence), there is nothing for science to follow. If you discover a big foot, then hopefully your discovery will not be as devoid of evidence as your belief in God. You should have a photo, video, a footprint, some hair or some other indication, aside from your subjective claim, upon which science can proceed. Otherwise your claim is no more valid than the claims of those who said they saw Elvis after he was known to be dead.
AV1611VET said:
Like spoon-bending, sending astronauts into orbit with a deck of cards to prove psychic links to a subject in a lab, going ga-ga over James Hydrick's ability to flip pages in a telephone book or move a pencil under an inverted aquarium?
You seem to be prone to confusing experiments to determine whether or not evidence exists with the observation of evidence. Sometimes one must experiment to see if evidence exists upon which to proceed with the scientific process. If you have an objective experiment to see if there is evidence of God, then submit your methodology. Otherwise you're simply attempting to fault people for engaging in the process of looking for something upon which the scientific method can be applied. People are welcome to look. But until they have something for science to work with, it's foolish to fault science for not proceeding.
AV1611VET said:
Sure, it'll read like this:
Dear Black Flag,
We've killed all the bugs except for just a handful left on the earth, but all of a sudden, your formula isn't working anymore.
What gives? They've even returned to their original nest, despite all our efforts to stop them!
Please explain.
Sincerely, the Devil
Do you believe that ants and cockroaches are receiving divine protection? Either you do or you don't. And if you don't, then you've gone the first step toward explaining to yourself why your assumption about the Jewish people is faulty.
AV1611VET said:
Upon what evidence do you make such an assertion?
AV1611VET said:
How about the fact that they are even mentioned as existing in the latter days? Does that help?
Peter Pan and Tinkerbell are mentioned. That doesn't mean they're real or ever were.
AV1611VET said:
Of course --- we won't mention the Christian Bible, either. We'll make sure credit goes to others first, too.
I asked that you mention those from the Christian Bible but you didn't provide any. That was your choice. You are, of course, still welcome to present them. But you should do so knowing that there isn't anything special about religious books which offer fulfilled prophecy. It's more the rule than the exception.
So what do you have to present?
AV1611VET said:
Like I said --- tell that to your buddies at SETI, who probably are making more money than you and I combined.
SETI is engaged in a search for evidence based upon that evidence we already have. We have photographs of unidentified flying objects. Often times these objects are unlike any flying craft with which the majority of the public is familiar. Perhaps these are extra-terrestrial in nature, perhaps they're not. But they are evidence that perhaps extraterrestrial life exists and they're engaged in a continuing search for more evidence -- evidence which science might be able to analyze and explore. What, exactly, is your objection to SETI?
AV1611VET said:
Here we go --- reading comprehension failure strikes again. Can't find the trinity in the Bible, huh? Oh well, let SETI look for it.
I grasp the concept of the trinity just fine, thank you. The trinity is an attempt to have three distinct gods, while still maintaining a claim of monotheism. You might be fooled by such sleight of hand, but that doesn't mean everyone is. If you have three gods, even if you suggest they are all part of one entity, your belief is polytheistic in nature, not monotheistic.
AV1611VET said:
Then don't ask me to read up on your science, if you're not willing to read up on my Bible --- fair enough?
What part of, "I believed for 33-years" do you not understand? I have read your Bible. There are many parts I've read dozens of times. And the more I read it, the more I study it, the more I find it to be completely lacking in credibility. I've read more of the Bible since I abandoned belief than I ever did when I believed. Had I read more if it sooner, I probably would have abandoned belief in it sooner. It's simply not a credible book. It makes continual and repeated claims so obviously fallacious that even Christians can no longer accept it for what it actually says. Everytime you show a Christian what the actual words say, they begin a game of word-swapping to try to lend credibility where none exists.
Since you're attempting to engage in a discussion about science, I don't find it at all inappropriate that it be suggested that you make yourself familiar with the concepts you're challenging
before you dub yourself qualified to challenge them. You clearly do not understand what science is or what it isn't. You have a chip on your shoulder because scientists won't just arbitrarily announce your personal subjective beliefs to be "facts". But proper science never claims anything as indisputable fact. There are those things which comply with the available evidence and those things which do not. Science embraces that which complies and rejects that which does not. Much of what the Bible claims does not comply with the evidence provided by reality. Hence, the claims aren't real; they're fallacious.
AV1611VET said:
Which one of us, Beastt, is out of water in this Christian Forum --- you or me? I suggest if you're gonna come here, please leave your lab coats, and your lab rats, and your vials, and your scientific calculators back "home", and bring a pad and pencil and learn a few things.
This is General Apologetics. If you're more comfortable in Christian Apologetics, there is nothing I'm aware of preventing you from engaging people there instead of here. As it is, there is nothing about General Apologetics which excludes the demonstrations of reality in demonstrating the difference between what is real and what is proclaimed in the Bible.