Demons, the scientific method.

[sandwiches]

Come to think of it you could just become a scientist and the demons would have to leave you alone.

Possessions, curses, voodoo dolls, crystal balls, astrology, prayer, faith healing, etc. All fail when observed for scientific purposes. Strange that all these things only work when not being scrutinized.

 

[mkatzwork]

Do you think demons are just going to sit there and let themselves be interviewed, or jump through hoops while a shrewdness of scientists makes observations?

Why wouldn't they? Their cause if they did indeed exist would be considerably strengthened by proof of their existence. I'd be a great deal more scared of a demon that I knew existed. It'd be the perfect thing for them to do. They'd have every motivation to demonstrate their existence and therefore their power....

Keep shooting yourself in the foot AV, it makes things easier for us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why wouldn't they?

Well ... let's see ... would you come here and jump through hoops, if your "contemporaries" were carcases on Neptune, and your other "contemporaries" were reserved in chains of darkness?

I mean ... angels were here before, jumping through hoops, and look what happened.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot AV, it makes things easier for us.

I'll do that ...

 

[AV1611VET]

Possessions, curses, voodoo dolls, crystal balls, astrology, prayer, faith healing, etc. All fail when observed for scientific purposes. Strange that all these things only work when not being scrutinized.

Yup ... advanced scouting parties should just be walking around with signs saying, "We're here!"

Shouldn't they?

 

[mkatzwork]

Well ... let's see ... would you come here and jump through hoops, if your "contemporaries" were carcases on Neptune, and your other "contemporaries" were reserved in chains of darkness?

Why do they need to jump through hoops? It'd be pretty simple for them, I mean really. I can think of lots of ways they could prove their existence pretty quickly and conclusively and it would certainly benefit them in a large number of ways. I still don't see what's stopping them. You're saying the supernatural is...shy?

 

[sandwiches]

Yup ... advanced scouting parties should just be walking around with signs saying, "We're here!"

Shouldn't they?

Scouting parties, eh? I forgot you think you're in some kind of spiritual war...

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence ple....never mind. Sure they were.

Genesis 6.

 

[Trogool]

Genesis 6.

That isn't evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scouting parties, eh? I forgot you think you're in some kind of spiritual war...

Why would you forget?

It's basic doctrine ...

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Ever heard of the armor of God?

 

[mkatzwork]

Genesis 6.

So...AV...we have a problem here.

When Genesis 1 says that God created the earth... according to you that isn't evidence of creation (since you said that there is NO evidence of creation). The biblical account therefore isn't evidence in your mind.

but when Genesis 6 says that angels were on Earth...that is evidence? So now the biblical account IS evidence in your mind?

Is Genesis considered evidence or not in your mind?

You can't have it both ways!

To an observer, it seems like you make it up as you go along...

 

[AV1611VET]

So...AV...we have a problem here.

When Genesis 1 says that God created the earth... according to you that isn't evidence of creation (since you said that there is NO evidence of creation). The biblical account therefore isn't evidence in your mind.

but when Genesis 6 says that angels were on Earth...that is evidence? So now the biblical account IS evidence in your mind?

Is Genesis considered evidence or not in your mind?

You can't have it both ways!

To an observer, it seems like you make it up as you go along...

I wasn't giving Genesis 6 as evidence.

I was merely backing my point up with Scripture.

That's what I thought you were looking for.

 

[mkatzwork]

Evidence ple....never mind. Sure they were.

Genesis 6.

I wasn't giving Genesis 6 as evidence.

I was merely backing my point up with Scripture.

That's what I thought you were looking for.

What I said was...and you quoted me...

"Evidence ple....never mind. Sure they were."

Leaving aside my attempt at humor in cutting myself off (due to foreknowledge of semantic wiggling)....what did you think I was asking for, when I said "evidence", other than evidence?

You crack me up. Consistently. So that's something

Ok, let's go at it another way. Were angels ever on the planet earth, and if so, what is your evidence (i.e. how do you determine the truth of that statement?).

 

[AV1611VET]

Were angels ever on the planet earth,

Yes.

... and if so, what is your evidence (i.e. how do you determine the truth of that statement?).

QV my signature.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

 

[Trogool]

Yes.

QV my signature.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

We know you think that AV, and that is why no one takes you seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know you think that AV, and that is why no one takes you seriously.

We call it 'basic doctrine.'

So don't take me seriously if you don't want to.

I know plenty of others who will.

 

[mkatzwork]

Yes.

QV my signature.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

So why is the Biblical account of creation, given in the very same book, not evidence for you? You've already said there is no evidence of creation, and you used that as the very reason it should be believed (using the only latin I've seen you use, creatio ex nihilo etc.)...so is Genesis 1 evidence of creation, and if not, why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

So why is the Biblical account of creation, given in the very same book, not evidence for you? You've already said there is no evidence of creation, and you used that as the very reason it should be believed (using the only latin I've seen you use, creatio ex nihilo etc.)...so is Genesis 1 evidence of creation, and if not, why not?

Because, as I have stated many times, creatio ex nihilo did not ... that's "did not" ... leave evidence behind.

I have an Apple Challenge that demonstrates just that fact.

In fact, my challenge forces you guys to demonstrate it.

By nature ... can you think of any evidence at all that creatio ex nihilo should have left behind?

A speck of dust? a drop of water? a stray light beam going in another direction? a misplaced planet? comet? a blade of grass at the bottom of the ocean? a grain of sand at the south pole?

Anything that would show it was done rather sloppily and haphazardously?

Or even neat and cleanly?

This universe didn't come into being via the Philadelphia Experiment.

 

[mkatzwork]

How about the eyewitness account supposedly from the omnipotent deity himself? You don't consider that evidence?

If anyone you know is murdered, will you dismiss the eyewitnesses' accounts because you don't consider eyewitnesses to be evidence?

Because, as I have stated many times, creatio ex nihilo did not ... that's "did not" ... leave evidence behind.

I have an Apple Challenge that demonstrates just that fact.

In fact, my challenge forces you guys to demonstrate it.

By nature ... can you think of any evidence at all that creatio ex nihilo should have left behind?

A speck of dust? a drop of water? a stray light beam going in another direction? a misplaced planet? comet? a blade of grass at the bottom of the ocean? a grain of sand at the south pole?

Anything that would show it was done rather sloppily and haphazardously?

Or even neat and cleanly?

This universe didn't come into being via the Philadelphia Experiment.

 

[CabVet]

How about the eyewitness account supposedly from the omnipotent deity himself? You don't consider that evidence?

If anyone you know is murdered, will you dismiss the eyewitnesses' accounts because you don't consider eyewitnesses to be evidence?

It could be evidence in a court of law, but it is not physical scientific evidence. There is a distinction there and I think AV is referring to the latter type of evidence.

 

[mkatzwork]

Understand the distinction and maybe we'll give AV a pass, I'm still not sure he's quite worked out his own epistemological standards, but there we go.

Gah. These guys - for creation, you get either:

"There is no evidence, why should there be any evidence" or you get

"Everything is evidence for creation"...

Or they go "I'm quoting from the Bible, but it's not evidence", whilst others go "the Bible is evidence for creation"...

and then Creationism is suggested by some as suitable for a science class.