Actually that is not in your department. So it is really not anything your qualified to have an opinion on.
Is that all you have to say? "You're not qualified, therefore your arguments don't matter"? And this comes from the same person who thinks that he has something to say on scientific matters?
Next time, attack my message, not me. What you did was a formal fallacy.
The people in the Catholic Church have studied all of that for Thousands of years and they are much better qualified to decide what is and what is not.
They are biased, in case you didn't notice, so I doubt they ever seriously studied whether Jesus existence was a fact or not.
Historians have studied his existence, too, and some of them think he doesn't exist. For a person that's as important as Jesus, there sure aren't many sources that mention his existence in the first place.
These people are the Phds, they are the experts. It's absurd to come here and demand we listen to the experts in Biology but disregard the experts in Religion and the Bible. That is a double standard.
Biology, like every natural science, adheres to objective standards by which we can measure whether a scientific explanation makes sense or not. We don't listen to the experts just because they are experts, but because their explanations make the most sense.
I deliberately used the word
explanation, not
opinion. If a biologist told me the human mind was located in the heart, I would ask for an explanation; if he couldn't give me one, I would laugh him off.
Now, tell me, what's the explanation of the church regarding the existence of Jesus? I don't care what the church
thinks, I want to know how they justify it.
I was under the impression that the use of this word, in and of itself constitutes an insult.
Who cares? No one cares! I suggest you stop blabbering and give me the evidence for your claims!
Ok, lets start with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. These are actually the fruit of the Holy Spirit of God in us, but this is a good place to start.
How do those things prove God, if I may ask?
The Bible comes from God, even though God works though man. Even Biologists can only study what God has given to them to study. All wisdom, knowledge and understanding comes from God. All that is good, proper and true.
Biologists studied what God has given them, and arrived at the conclusion that evolution is false,
based on what he has given them?
By the way, what you just said has no relevance to this topic whatsoever.
Then perhaps you do not know the difference between a counterfeit and the real thing.
So atheists are incapable of love and wisdom? How is that not an insult?
But if what you say is true then you should be able to package it up and sell it. So the whole world could be filled with Love, Joy and Peace.
Can you give me a packet of love?
What are you even talking about?
God has no problem to engrave in stone, fossils for example. Although ink does tend to be a bit more advanced.
Why didn't he just upload it into our brains, so we would not be dependent on his book?
Predicting the future in a real way.
Name three scientific principles? We can take a look at it.
Seems to me we could use..
1)assume a same state past
2)assume a same state future
3)deny all things spiritual and historical and biblical
Again, shows that you have no idea. Scientists don't deny spiritual things for no reason, they simply have no way of testing them.
You assume the same state past and future, too.
If I may repeat my question:
What makes your assumption of future consistency better than the scientific assumption of future consistency?
I'm waiting. Still.