Evidence vs. Believe (A Tale of Two Bunnies)

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So in other words, you don't have any physical evidence.
Physical evidence for God?

Sure:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:20).

Do you have any physical evidence for the dark energy that is supposedly expanding the universe?
Existence does not necessitate a God.
Then how do you explain how life arose in the universe?
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And how do you test a truth about God?
You think of something that is a subjective truth that you think God would agree with... or that something you believe to be true about the nature of God would lead to a certain type of action. Then you make the decision to live as one who believes this concept to be true. You then measure it's results with it's success rate.
I call it the God experiment. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gen 1:16 God made two great lights.

And explain how there was evening and morning and days before that and how he made land plants before the sun.


The story is not literal.
A person of that time with no scientific knowledge of how our solar system works might perceive the sun as orbiting the earth, and he would have recorded and described what he saw exactly as he perceived it.

If this record was received and read by scientists today they would recognize that the author was describing literal events (sunrise and sunset followed by sunrise and sunset) even though it was not a scientific description.

Just because events in Genesis 1 may not have been described scientifically does not mean the events were not literal. The author may have simply described the events as he perceived them with his limited scientific knowledge.

God is not concerned about the science of Genesis 1; He is concerned about the history, so the limited scientific knowledge of the author could be overlooked since it does not affect in anyway the focus of Genesis 1.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
161
Ohio
✟5,675.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
A person of that time with no scientific knowledge of how our solar system works might perceive the sun as orbiting the earth, and he would have described what he saw exactly as he perceived it.

If this record was received and read by scientists today they would recognize that the author was describing a literal event even though it was not a scientific description.

Just because events in Genesis may not have been described scientifically does not mean the events were not literal. The author may have simply described the events as he perceived them with his limited scientific knowledge.

So, I take it you're admitting it was written by men with a limited understanding of their environment?
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So, I take it you're admitting it was written by men with a limited understanding of their environment?
Yes,...just as scientists today have limited understanding of their environment. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lion Hearted Man

Eternal Newbie
Dec 11, 2010
2,805
107
Visit site
✟11,179.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Physical evidence for God?

Sure:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:20).

You evidence is a Bible verse that claims it is obvious that God did it? Why are your standards of evidence so low for your own claims, yet so high for the claims of science?

Do you have any physical evidence for the dark energy that is supposedly expanding the universe?

Straw man. Dark energy has nothing to do with this conversation.

Then how do you explain how life arose in the universe?

Physics and chemistry.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Why would anyone have evidence for something that's still only a hypothesis?
“We know how much dark energy there is because we know how it affects the Universe's expansion... It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy... One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space...Because this energy is a property of space itself, it would not be diluted as space expands. As more space comes into existence, more of this energy-of-space would appear.” - Source
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2005
6,032
116
45
✟6,911.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Physical evidence for God?

Sure:

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." (Rom 1:20).

Do you have any physical evidence for the dark energy that is supposedly expanding the universe?
Then how do you explain how life arose in the universe?

The fact that the universe exists no more proves the existence of God than the existence of my shoes proves the existence of shoe-making elves.

I call it the God experiment. :thumbsup:

And as far as tests go it is worthless.

A person of that time with no scientific knowledge of how our solar system works might perceive the sun as orbiting the earth, and he would have recorded and described what he saw exactly as he perceived it.

If this record was received and read by scientists today they would recognize that the author was describing literal events (sunrise and sunset followed by sunrise and sunset) even though it was not a scientific description.

Just because events in Genesis 1 may not have been described scientifically does not mean the events were not literal. The author may have simply described the events as he perceived them with his limited scientific knowledge.

God is not concerned about the science of Genesis 1; He is concerned about the history, so the limited scientific knowledge of the author could be overlooked since it does not affect in anyway the focus of Genesis 1.

Of course, a sufficiently observant person would look at the way the planets move across the night sky and conclude that the most likely explanation is that the planets (including earth) go around the sun.

Of course, all you;ve done here is show that the Bible was written by fallible humans, and was not inspired by God.

Yes,...just as scientists today have limited understanding of their environment. :)

And they have a much greater understanding than the people who wrote the texts that were collected to form the Bible. That's why scientists today have no need to invoke God to explain things.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You evidence is a Bible verse that claims it is obvious that God did it?
The Bible papers have been peer reviewed.
Why are your standards of evidence so low for your own claims, yet so high for the claims of science?
Many of the claims of science I have never, and can never, personally experience.

However, I have personally experienced "God did it".
Straw man. Dark energy has nothing to do with this conversation.
It has to do with your lack of evidence for a scientific claim.

Why are your standards of evidence so low for dark energy, yet so high for God energy?
Physics and chemistry.
"Physics and chemistry did it" is not an explanation. Try again.

And while you're at it, care to give us a scientific demonstration?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No, how 'bout you stick with context, or is that against your religion? The video I posted was in response to a video posted by Frenchybearpaw, Mr Ihatechristians hisself. Impossible to miss that bit of context, and in fact the video was on the list of related videos of the one frenchy posted.

Neither video has much merit at all.
^_^ Don't flatter yourself. I don't hate anyone.

BTW, lying makes baby Jesus cry.
 
Upvote 0

Lion Hearted Man

Eternal Newbie
Dec 11, 2010
2,805
107
Visit site
✟11,179.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
The Bible papers have been peer reviewed.
Many of the claims of science I have never, and can never, personally experience.

However, I have personally experienced "God did it".
It has to do with your lack of evidence for a scientific claim.

Why are your standards of evidence so low for dark energy, yet so high for God?
"Physics and chemistry did it" is not an explanation. Try again.

And while you are at it, care to give us a scientific demonstration?

You're one of those types who simply isn't on the same page as people who accept science as a mode of discovering knowledge. Nothing anyone says can get through to you here, because you don't even accept the most basic forms of logic and reason, so this conversation is pointless. What really surprises me most is that despite your disbelief in science, you daily benefit from it, and even utilize a computer to post your nonsense. Practice what you preach and stop depending on science. After all, you can't "experience it"...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You're one of those types who simply isn't on the same page as people who accept science as a mode of discovering knowledge. Nothing anyone says can get through to you here, because you don't even accept the most basic forms of logic and reason, so this conversation is pointless.
Does this mean you have given up on the conversation? :o
What really surprises me most is that despite your disbelief in science, you daily benefit from it, and even utilize a computer to post your nonsense. Practice what you preach and stop depending on science. After all, you can't "experience it"...
I don't disbelieve in science; I just happen to believe in God more.

If the science does not agree with God, then the science can take a hike.
 
Upvote 0

FrenchyBearpaw

Take time for granite.
Jun 13, 2011
3,252
79
✟4,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Does this mean you have given up on the conversation? :o
I don't disbelieve in science; I just happen to believe in God more.

If the science does not agree with God, then the science can take a hike.
Sure, but which version of god?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lion Hearted Man

Eternal Newbie
Dec 11, 2010
2,805
107
Visit site
✟11,179.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Does this mean you have given up on the conversation? :o

It's a waste of time. You don't value reason or science, so how can I show that they are important? It's like we are speaking two different languages. You're running into Greg1234 territory with your anti-science zeal, which we all know is impossible to reason with.

I don't disbelieve in science; I just happen to believe in God more.

You replace science with God.

If the science does not agree with God, then the science can take a hike.

What you should have said is "if the science does not agree with my interpretation of God, then the science can take a hike." Who has the arrogance to speak for God? You, apparently. If God exists I don't know if he or she would be pleased.
 
Upvote 0