How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[dad]

You may continue to believe that, but it doesn't make it true. There are a number of well-known failed prophecies in the bible. I'm pretty sure you're aware of them but choose to deny they exist.

No.

 

[Kylie]

No.

Yes.

 

[dad]

I have explained how prophecies can be wrong. Do you think that never happens?

In science, yes. For psychics, yes. In the bible, no.

 

[dad]

Yes.

No. No...

 

[Kylie]

In science, yes. For psychics, yes. In the bible, no.

Please tell me how my criticisms of prophecies can not apply to the prophecies in the Bible.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No.

No, you're not aware? You surprise me. For somebody who claims to know so much more than others about the bible I expected you to know there are failed prophecies in it. Perhaps you should go and do some research.

 

[Kylie]

No. No...

Yes. Yes...

 

[dad]

Please tell me how my criticisms of prophecies can not apply to the prophecies in the Bible.

Easy. Tell us how you thought they did.

 

[dad]

No, you're not aware? You surprise me. For somebody who claims to know so much more than others about the bible I expected you to know there are failed prophecies in it. Perhaps you should go and do some research.

I am aware of many old wives' tales and misconceptions based on a lack of understanding some people chose to have.

 

[dad]

Yes. Yes...

NO....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am aware of many old wives' tales and misconceptions based on a lack of understanding some people chose to have.

So now you want to claim that you are aware of these failed prophecies? Make up your mind - either you're aware of them or you're not. Even @dad cannot claim to be both.

 

[Kylie]

Easy. Tell us how you thought they did.

I have explained this to you many times. Have you not been paying attention?

A person can write a prophecy that is filled with vague language so it can be interpreted to mean anything. It's easy to twist the prophecy to fit later events. That doesn't prove that the later events were what the original writer was talking about.

Someone can write a prophecy AFTER the events that claim to have fulfilled it, and then claim that the prophecy was written before. It's like me writing on a piece of paper that Obama would be the first black president, and then claiming I found it in a collection of my school work from the 1990s.

Someone can find an old prophecy and then make up an event to make it seem like the prophecy was fulfilled, even if the fulfilling event never happened. Like if I found an old prophecy that said a woman would win the lotto twice in one month, then I say, "Oh yeah, this predicted the time when I won the lotto twice in a month," even if I'd never won the lotto at all.

 

[Kylie]

NO....

YES....

 

[Mark Quayle]

Oh yeah? .. What was it that did the 'knowing' and what is it that does the 'looking' then?
Now try showing me exactly how that can be accomplished without using the same kind of human mind that also devised the laws you speak of.

To analyze and report on what is observed is not the same as devising. If they are true, they are God's truth, or he is not God. The truth is truth quite independently of our knowing it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I have no idea of what you mean by 'God of the Gaps Theory' here ..
You have not yet succeeded in demonstrating even a rudimentary understanding of science - its principles and processes, so you are not qualified to say how science is, and isn't conducted.

The fact I haven't shown it doesn't mean I am not qualified. Let's take just a small example: Cause and Effect demands First Cause, or Infinite Regression. Infinite Regression is logically self-defeating, it is begging the question, circular argument, madness. It answers nothing.

Nor do you need to understand quantum theory to have common sense. It is only a partial equation, begging for cause, and when none shows itself (unless First Cause is still active, perhaps, or other effects are causing the effects described by quantum physics), are scientists logical to say there is no cause --that these effects are self-caused?

 

[dad]

So now you want to claim that you are aware of these failed prophecies? Make up your mind - either you're aware of them or you're not. Even @dad cannot claim to be both.

I am aware of what people claim who lack understanding of the matter.

 

[dad]

I have explained this to you many times. Have you not been paying attention?

A person can write a prophecy that is filled with vague language so it can be interpreted to mean anything. It's easy to twist the prophecy to fit later events. That doesn't prove that the later events were what the original writer was talking about.

Someone can write a prophecy AFTER the events that claim to have fulfilled it, and then claim that the prophecy was written before. It's like me writing on a piece of paper that Obama would be the first black president, and then claiming I found it in a collection of my school work from the 1990s.

Someone can find an old prophecy and then make up an event to make it seem like the prophecy was fulfilled, even if the fulfilling event never happened. Like if I found an old prophecy that said a woman would win the lotto twice in one month, then I say, "Oh yeah, this predicted the time when I won the lotto twice in a month," even if I'd never won the lotto at all.

Not in the bible.

 

[dad]

YES....

NO.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am aware of what people claim who lack understanding of the matter.

We are all very aware of that. The frustrating thing is that you keep putting those claims forward as if they have some sort of merit.

 

[Mark Quayle]

One thing He cannot do is lie. He already spoke and it was confirmed by Jesus. No mystery about creation, only belief or unbelief.

He cannot lie because he doesn't want to lie. Or perhaps he doesn't want to lie because he cannot want to lie. It matters not. He will not lie --it is a non-thing. Not so much a restriction on him as mere non-fact. To suggest he might be able to lie is to like saying he can make a rock too big for him to lift; why would he want to do that? It is silly --a self-contradictory proposition. Of course he cannot lie.

Totally in agreement about creation and belief. But with one addition: it is also reasonable. God does not counter science ---only the scientific community, perhaps. Yet even they are not such fools as people like to portray them. They admit, for the most part, that they do not know. They admit, this is only where research has taken us...

We are logically able to see the possibility of First Cause, and that with Purpose,
for example. No need to look to belief for that.