How to prove God exists.

[Radrook]

Well, I guess that brings the conversation to an end.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, it is totally rational and scientific to conclude an intelligent designer based on observation and justifiable inference. Irrational? What is irrational is your vehement insistence that an intelligent designer has to be a god, goddess, or God in in order to qualify as an intelligent designer. However, when faced with such films as 2001 and 2010 A Space Odyssey such a thought doesn't even flicker across the atheistic mind. In fact, your own physicists entertain such extraterrestrial or extra dimensional causes as feasible. However, if an ID proponent as much as whispers the idea of an intelligent designer then they immediately and angrily object and introduce God.

ID is not science, its religion. This has even been proven in court.

 

[Radrook]

ID is not science, its religion. This has even been proven in court.

Courts can be biased and appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

 

[Skreeper]

Unceremonious dismissal of evidence without a valid explanation or refutation , or offering some glib explanation which is no explanation at all doesn't constitute a rebuttal.

There have been several valid explanations and refutations offered to you but you ignore these posts completely every time and move on.
For example you still use FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable? which has been refuted numerous times.

 

[Kylie]

Refusal to acknowledge seeing doesn't mean that there is nothing there to see.

And claiming that the thing you wish to find simply must be there doesn't mean it is real.

How about we take the evidence, put it all to the test, and see what makes it through?

 

[Radrook]

And claiming that the thing you wish to find simply must be there doesn't mean it is real.

How about we take the evidence, put it all to the test, and see what makes it through?

LOL! Are you making a joke?

 

[Kylie]

And what?

You want my proof?

How about the Bible? AD 2017? churches? holidays? bumper stickers? hymns? iconography? debates? testimonies? martyrs?

Just to name a few?

Those are not proof of God.

A holy text is not proof of a deity, otherwise you would find the Hindu texts proof that Hinduism is correct.

A calendar is not proof of God, since other countries use other calendars, and our own calendar has references to other Gods anyway.

None of the other things are proof either. Your standards for evidence are extremely low.

 

[Kylie]

They see an apple fall and claim it is evidence for gravity.

They see a martyr fall (hanged) and claim it is evidence he died believing something he knew wasn't true.

We see him fall and believe that he died for something he BELIEVED was true, but a man can believe something to be true even if it isn't.

 

[Radrook]

We see him fall and believe that he died for something he BELIEVED was true, but a man can believe something to be true even if it isn't.

Like abiogenesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In fact, when science is used to support an atheist viewpoint it invariably ceases to be science because it employs irrationality and irrationality and science just don't mix.

How about when it is used to support a theist viewpoint?

ps: identifying a viewpoint as "atheistic", is like identifying a hobby by calling it "not stamp collecting". It's pretty meaningless.

 

[Freodin]

No, it is totally rational and scientific to conclude an intelligent designer based on observation and justifiable inference. Irrational?

That is slightly incorrect. It is totally rational and scientific to postulate an intelligent designer.

But, during all your research, with all these videos that you watched and agreed with, you might have noticed that ID never concludes an Intelligent Designer based on observazion and justifiable inference, but always on the denial of an alternative.

What is irrational is your vehement insistence that an intelligent designer has to be a god, goddess, or God in in order to qualify as an intelligent designer.

That must be the reason why all these videos that you present - all of them, without exception - insists that the intelligent designer has to be God.

However, when faced with such films as 2001 and 2010 A Space Odyssey such a thought doesn't even flicker across the atheistic mind.

Oh, you can be certain that such a thought is constantly on the "atheistic mind"... and sometimes even on the mind on the authors of these fictional pieces. You remember my mention of David Brin's "Uplift Universe"?

It might surprise you: but that a certain idea is not elaborated on in a piece of fiction made for entertainment purposes doesn't mean that people don't consider the consequences and conclusions of such an idea.

In fact, your own physicists entertain such extraterrestrial or extra dimensional causes as feasible.

And they also "entertain" ideas about the limits of such a concept. Something that ID's never get around to. How scientific!

However, if an ID proponent as much as whispers the idea of an intelligent designer then they immediately and angrily object and introduce God.

Because "ID proponents" are not interested in scientifically researching the concept of ID. There might be a few who do... but all those who loudly proclaim their "scientific position of ID" do it only to promote their theistic ideas.

If you really wanted to promote a scientific version of ID, you would first have to divest yourself of all the "liars for [deity of choice]"
Justifiedly or not... these people poison your "science". And there is no intention in any part of the ID side to denounce these folks.

Have you ever wondered why medical scientists denounce quacks?

 

[Kylie]

LOL! Are you making a joke?

What part of that do you think is a joke?

 

[Kylie]

Like abiogenesis.

So we look for the EVIDENCE that the event actually happened, don't we?

 

[VirOptimus]

Courts can be biased and appeal to popularity is a fallacy.

Read the court documents, its a very wellfounded conclusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

We see him fall and believe that he died for something he BELIEVED was true,

What's your definition of "faith"?

 

[Skreeper]

What's your definition of "faith"?

Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason or justification for believing something.

 

[Radrook]

So we look for the EVIDENCE that the event actually happened, don't we?

But you don't find it in nature, can't force it to happen in a lab but insist that it happened anyway-don't you?

 

[Skreeper]

But you don't find it in nature, can't force it to happen in a lab but insist that it happened anyway-don't you?

Science does not currently know how life originated on this planet. Are you claiming that you do know?

 

[Radrook]

What part of that do you think is a joke?

The whole proposition seems like a joke since we both know that you have already rejected all possible explanations and all possible presentations of evidence as unsatisfactory. So it really constitutes an invitation to an exercise in futility.

 

[AV1611VET]

Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason or justification for believing something.

So people were hanged upside down, sawn in half, and flayed alive for excuses?

I always thought you guys believed faith was something you believed in, even though you knew it wasn't true? (Mark Twain's definition.)