What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[cvanwey]

At least you are more logical then the other guy who keep get confused about events and scientific facts.

You are basically telling this fella, 'I'm the smartest, you rank second, and the other guy ranks third.' And yet, it is you whom invokes 'magic', when you cannot formulate a logical response.

Kool

 

[cvanwey]

Science is the method we try to study this world, we learn through assumptions and try to affirm our assumptions via scientific facts, i.e. the repeatable, verifiable tests on this world (which you keep confused about historic events, even bring in 911 and won't admit).

Which means science study both scientific facts and have assumptions. i.e. how old is earth, which is an assumption, estimated (we don't really know but we try to GUESS based on existing scientific fact we know), and could be wrong as we discover more scientific facts.

Let's see who is 'confused', keep reading below...

And that is why you keep thinking that I somehow "flood claim a scentific fact", your own word, just shows how confused you are.

You are confused about what I stated. I stated:

'a historical event can be a scientific fact. However, once the evidence is gone, all bets are off.'

OK, since you claim that global flood is falsifiable, go ahead and present your evidence.

Not yet. Like you, we need to clarify our methods for our 'assumptions'... Thus far, when observations are presented to you, and it directly conflicts with the assertion in your believed book, which you realize does not align with your assumptions, translates into 'god could just take care of that.' (i.e.) 'God could speed up plate tectonics.'

Well, there is no way to debate with such a person, quite frankly. I am more than capable in bringing up dozens of observations which would violate logic in such a story, along with scientific findings. But at the end of the day, it is already apparent that when you realize if such said conclusions are true, you throwing in the 'magic' card, tells me 2 things...

1. You realize I may be on to something, hence the reason you respond in saying 'God did this/that'.
2. You realize that many of your assumption/assertions are not falsifiable, which deems you safe.

Well, welcome to Apologetics 101 baby.

If God wants the water to recede faster, why He can't not make tectonic plate move faster?

Why would he move the plates faster? Mt. Everest formed over millions of years, per geologists. What would be the point in creating a mountain, where a mountain was not prior?

Your response makes very little sense. What animals would seek shelter on such a high mountain? Why would God not raise all land, and not just isolated areas?

 

[Moral Orel]

What I am presenting is evidences against Scientology. You are claiming that you can't prove it wrong due to "absence of evidence"?

No, what you presented as evidence was an absence of evidence for Scientology. You're saying that you can prove Scientology wrong because it hasn't proven itself right. That doesn't work. Watch.

If God is really active in people's lives like Christians claim, there should be unbiased, documented, peer reviewed research of His effects on the physical world. There is not, therefore I can conclude there is no God.

That doesn't work does it? But since that's the best evidence you've got, you clearly can't prove Scientology wrong. Just own it already. We've been at this for way too long for you to not see it. All Woo is unfalsifiable.

 

[dcalling]

You are basically telling this fella, 'I'm the smartest, you rank second, and the other guy ranks third.' And yet, it is you whom invokes 'magic', when you cannot formulate a logical response.

Kool

I didn't do that. All I did is stating facts, i.e. you can't logically distinguish between scientific facts and historical events, and deny it to such points that you try to mingle events such as 911 as scientific facts, and refuse to acknowledge (or don't know) that you have made this mistake.

 

[dcalling]

No, what you presented as evidence was an absence of evidence for Scientology. You're saying that you can prove Scientology wrong because it hasn't proven itself right. That doesn't work. Watch.

If God is really active in people's lives like Christians claim, there should be unbiased, documented, peer reviewed research of His effects on the physical world. There is not, therefore I can conclude there is no God.

That doesn't work does it? But since that's the best evidence you've got, you clearly can't prove Scientology wrong. Just own it already. We've been at this for way too long for you to not see it. All Woo is unfalsifiable.

God's affect on us is way too board and most of the time we don't understand those, such as how life starts, why quantum tangling happens etc. We research all the time and we can't understand it.

Which is totally different then scientology, which we know what is a emter and we can repeately veriably testit.

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't do that. All I did is stating facts, i.e. you can't logically distinguish between scientific facts and historical events, and deny it to such points that you try to mingle events such as 911 as scientific facts, and refuse to acknowledge (or don't know) that you have made this mistake.

No, I have repeatably responded to your unfounded assertion. I care not to play ping pong with the same trivial point...

If you want to assume I'm not logical, you have two choices:

1. Claim victory and proceed to the next topic in our discussion, which you would now know should be easy to defeat, because I am not logical.
2. Ignore my posts all together, because I'm not logical.

Your choice.

Starting anew, your choice...

Mt. Everest is millions of years old, per geology.
Homo sapiens are up to 300K years old, per other sciences.
Plate tectonics asserts that continental drift happens slowly, due to the mantel, per science.

Let's just start there....

 

[Moral Orel]

God's affect on us is way too board and most of the time we don't understand those, such as how life starts, why quantum tangling happens etc. We research all the time and we can't understand it.

Which is totally different then scientology, which we know what is a emter and we can repeately veriably testit.

No, you can't test an E-Meter because spiritual trauma's effect on us is too broad and we can't completely understand it. It's Woo. That's why I keep asking, "How do you know spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electrical signals in our bodies?". All you've said is that, "Scientology hasn't proved it" which isn't evidence. It's literally nothing.

But you're going to keep making this baseless assertion that you've falsified the unfalsifiable without producing a single shred of evidence to back it up, and I'm bored with this. So unless you actually present some evidence against Scientology instead of merely declaring it false, I'm done here. We've been at this for pages and pages now, and it can all be boiled down to this:

Me: You can't prove Scientology is false.
You: Yes I can.
Me: Okay, then prove it.
You: They didn't prove they're right, I win.
Me: No you didn't.
You: Yes I did...

Ad nauseum.

 

[dcalling]

No, you can't test an E-Meter because spiritual trauma's effect on us is too broad and we can't completely understand it. It's Woo. That's why I keep asking, "How do you know spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electrical signals in our bodies?". All you've said is that, "Scientology hasn't proved it" which isn't evidence. It's literally nothing.

But you're going to keep making this baseless assertion that you've falsified the unfalsifiable without producing a single shred of evidence to back it up, and I'm bored with this. So unless you actually present some evidence against Scientology instead of merely declaring it false, I'm done here. We've been at this for pages and pages now, and it can all be boiled down to this:

Me: You can't prove Scientology is false.
You: Yes I can.
Me: Okay, then prove it.
You: They didn't prove they're right, I win.
Me: No you didn't.
You: Yes I did...

Ad nauseum.

Yes you can. It is a physical device, and if a regular person can't follow the same steps and produce the same results under the same condition, you know it is wrong

 

[cvanwey]

Yes you can. It is a physical device, and if a regular person can't follow the same steps and produce the same results under the same condition, you know it is wrong

Let me cut in, because many of us may be starting to feel kind of bad for you now....

Your 'gut feeling' that it is wrong, most likely is true. However, what HE is saying, is that there is no way to actually falsify the claim. 'You are just not properly trained to use the device appropriately, and can't be w/o prior belief.' Or other... You get it now?

 

[dcalling]

No, I have repeatably responded to your unfounded assertion. I care not to play ping pong with the same trivial point...

If you want to assume I'm not logical, you have two choices:

1. Claim victory and proceed to the next topic in our discussion, which you would now know should be easy to defeat, because I am not logical.
2. Ignore my posts all together, because I'm not logical.

Your choice.

Starting anew, your choice...

Mt. Everest is millions of years old, per geology.
Homo sapiens are up to 300K years old, per other sciences.
Plate tectonics asserts that continental drift happens slowly, due to the mantel, per science.

Let's just start there....

Well, if you can't pass the initial logical issue, all your following arguments are just based on a bad fundation and is invalid, it is comparable to doing DFT before understanding what FFT is.

Your questions are all invalid when you can't distinguish a repeatable verifiable and testable scientific fact and some historical event. That you keep bring on 911 as example of scientific fact and cant realize it (or it is your effort to muddy the waters).

Lets bring this, you believe that Mt Everest is millions year old, not thousands or billions, since you quoted a number from a webpage, and believe that "per geology". That is not a scientific fact, the number is not got a repeatable, testable verifiable way. That is maybe a consensus from some (usually a majority) of scientists from such fields, and many times can be wrong. Some examples are, how dinos died out, how much generic deversity we have, or how scablands formed.

 

[dcalling]

Let me cut in, because many of us may be starting to feel kind of bad for you now....

Your 'gut feeling' that it is wrong, most likely is true. However, what HE is saying, is that there is no way to actually falsify the claim. 'You are just not properly trained to use the device appropriately, and can't be w/o prior belief.' Or other... You get it now?

What I said was "Yes you can. It is a physical device, and if a regular person can't follow the same steps and produce the same results under the same condition, you know it is wrong", exact quote. where did the gut feeling come from? Can you use the device to repeatably test and verify it works, regardless of the person (with the same training) operating said machine?

We can discuss this after we sort out your issue of claiming 911 in the same category as scientific evidence.

 

[Moral Orel]

Can you use the device to repeatably test and verify it works, regardless of the person (with the same training) operating said machine?

Bolding added by me for emphasis.
Show us all the peer reviewed study of skilled Scientologist auditors failing to detect spiritual trauma. That's your standard of proof for them, peer review, so let's see it. Put an end to all this, and put us all to shame by presenting the evidence you claim exists.

 

[cvanwey]

Well, if you can't pass the initial logical issue, all your following arguments are just based on a bad fundation and is invalid, it is comparable to doing DFT before understanding what FFT is.

Your questions are all invalid when you can't distinguish a repeatable verifiable and testable scientific fact and some historical event. That you keep bring on 911 as example of scientific fact and cant realize it (or it is your effort to muddy the waters).

Lets bring this, you believe that Mt Everest is millions year old, not thousands or billions, since you quoted a number from a webpage, and believe that "per geology". That is not a scientific fact, the number is not got a repeatable, testable verifiable way. That is maybe a consensus from some (usually a majority) of scientists from such fields, and many times can be wrong. Some examples are, how dinos died out, how much generic deversity we have, or how scablands formed.

You repeat the same thing over and over. All-the-while, for starters, if 'Mt. Everest was raised swiftly by God to 'recede' above the waters,' why would God recede a mountain so high, in which virtually nothing of natural means could sustain life upon? What would be the reason? Did God also 'recede' all land, or just the mountains? You do realize many animals require specific habitats, right? Many of which are not on mountain tops.

Furthermore, nowhere does any of this appear in the Bible. Which means you are most likely pulling this response out of your hooha. And it's not falsifiable. So here we are....

My point is also that geology asserts this age. If you can demonstrate otherwise, bring the evidence.

And if I provide evidence for your questions, which demonstrate something you don't like, are you going to change your mind? Highly doubtful....

 

[Moral Orel]

You repeat the same thing over and over. All-the-while, for starters, if 'Mt. Everest was raised swiftly by God to 'recede' above the waters,' why would God recede a mountain so high, in which virtually nothing of natural means could sustain life upon? What would be the reason? Did God also 'recede' all land, or just the mountains? You do realize many animals require specific habitats, right? Many of which are not on mountain tops.

Furthermore, nowhere does any of this appear in the Bible. Which means you are most likely pulling this response out of your hooha. And it's not falsifiable. So here we are....

My point is also that geology asserts this age. If you can demonstrate otherwise, bring the evidence.

And if I provide evidence for your questions, which demonstrate something you don't like, are you going to change your mind? Highly doubtful....

That's the problem with arguing about gods. The theist can always invoke magic to explain away any problem with their view, and you can't prove magic isn't real.

 

[dcalling]

Bolding added by me for emphasis.
Show us all the peer reviewed study of skilled Scientologist auditors failing to detect spiritual trauma. That's your standard of proof for them, peer review, so let's see it. Put an end to all this, and put us all to shame by presenting the evidence you claim exists.

I phrased it wrong. should have said proper training. Example, for any scientific experiment, if you can't reproduce it else where, it is invalid. However most of the time if the ones who try to reproduce it was not properly trained, they might failed experiment not because the procedure, but because they didn't not properly follow the procedure, that is what I meant.

 

[dcalling]

You repeat the same thing over and over. All-the-while, for starters, if 'Mt. Everest was raised swiftly by God to 'recede' above the waters,' why would God recede a mountain so high, in which virtually nothing of natural means could sustain life upon? What would be the reason? Did God also 'recede' all land, or just the mountains? You do realize many animals require specific habitats, right? Many of which are not on mountain tops.

Furthermore, nowhere does any of this appear in the Bible. Which means you are most likely pulling this response out of your hooha. And it's not falsifiable. So here we are....

My point is also that geology asserts this age. If you can demonstrate otherwise, bring the evidence.

And if I provide evidence for your questions, which demonstrate something you don't like, are you going to change your mind? Highly doubtful....

to your question 1, God could force the movement with such a great force (that is nessessary to receed the water in a short time), and such force caused a momento and the plats keeps moving after wards, so the mountain became higher.

And you are right, none of this is in the Bible and God could did someting totally different, as I am just guessing what God has done, which to the record we humans often guessed wrong.

And to your question 2, please remember we are in this not because I want to prove the Bible is true, we are in this argument over your statement that the Bible is falsifiable because the flood is falsifiable, so my job is simply show you why the flood is not falsifiable (which you sort of pointed out that.... it is not falsifiable).

Which of course is back to the initial part of your logic issues, that you keep mixing the differences between repeatable, verifiable testable scientific facts and world events, and you keep thinking and trying to use such non-falsifiable things to falsify the flood claim, which even you are now realizing is not falsifiable

 

[dcalling]

That's the problem with arguing about gods. The theist can always invoke magic to explain away any problem with their view, and you can't prove magic isn't real.

Except I am simply point out why he is using assumptions as facts.

 

[cvanwey]

to your question 1, God could force the movement with such a great force (that is nessessary to receed the water in a short time), and such force caused a momento and the plats keeps moving after wards, so the mountain became higher.

And you are right, none of this is in the Bible and God could did someting totally different, as I am just guessing what God has done, which to the record we humans often guessed wrong.

"I don't know, I have no sources, no science backs up such a claim, neither does the Bible, and yet I ask others for peer review in their 'assumptions'/assertions towards me.' Got it.

Plate tectonics causes plates to move and shift, from the earth's mantel. This is the assertion and tested conclusion from science. Why would the plates move from a flood? Furthermore, what is God's necessity to shift the plates? You stated to 'recede' the waters. But this makes no sense. In order for the land animals to get back to their habitats, the water would need to recede everywhere, not just for the higher mountains. The water would have to recede rapidly, presumably all the way back down to what we now know as sea level.

Furthermore, nothing you stated above addressed my line of questioning...

And to your question 2, please remember we are in this not because I want to prove the Bible is true, we are in this argument over your statement that the Bible is falsifiable because the flood is falsifiable, so my job is simply show you why the flood is not falsifiable (which you sort of pointed out that.... it is not falsifiable).

Which of course is back to the initial part of your logic issues, that you keep mixing the differences between repeatable, verifiable testable scientific facts and world events, and you keep thinking and trying to use such non-falsifiable things to falsify the flood claim, which even you are now realizing is not falsifiable

On no, I stated very clearly. No flood, no bible. I am only going after falsifiable claimed events. A claimed flood is falsifiable. I agree many assertions from the Bible are not falsifiable. But the flood claim is fair game.

Humans can observe the evidence which a flood would leave behind. A flood, of this magnitude, would leave behind evidence, just like every other flood leaves.

As I stated prior, yes, (you) could suppress the evidence that your house got flooded last week, by destroying the evidence. However, a global flood's evidence would not be destroyed, regardless of if it was 5K years ago, or 5 million years ago.

Sprinkling in all the other necessary logical absurdities with it, though those logical absurdities may not falsify the flood on their own merits, are still not necessary, as the flood can be falsified merely by addressing the evidence.

Again, we know what evidence a flood would leave behind. We have none related to a world flood which caused global extinction within a calendar year. The evidence instead suggests no activity in any time frame in which a flood claim could have been made.

On a side note, were you ever going to challenge the scientific community, that homo sapiens are less than 300K years old?

 

[cvanwey]

Except I am simply point out why he is using assumptions as facts.

The scientific community assumes Mt Everest is millions of years old.
The scientific community assumes homo sapiens are under 300K years old.

Their level of 'assumptions' are on the same level of playing field as yours, right?

But continue with your post hoc assumptions, it's entertaining at least...

 

[dcalling]

"I don't know, I have no sources, no science backs up such a claim, neither does the Bible, and yet I ask others for peer review in their 'assumptions'/assertions towards me.' Got it.

Plate tectonics causes plates to move and shift, from the earth's mantel. This is the assertion and tested conclusion from science. Why would the plates move from a flood? Furthermore, what is God's necessity to shift the plates? You stated to 'recede' the waters. But this makes no sense. In order for the land animals to get back to their habitats, the water would need to recede everywhere, not just for the higher mountains. The water would have to recede rapidly, presumably all the way back down to what we now know as sea level.

Furthermore, nothing you stated above addressed my line of questioning...

On no, I stated very clearly. No flood, no bible. I am only going after falsifiable claimed events. A claimed flood is falsifiable. I agree many assertions from the Bible are not falsifiable. But the flood claim is fair game.

Humans can observe the evidence which a flood would leave behind. A flood, of this magnitude, would leave behind evidence, just like every other flood leaves.

As I stated prior, yes, (you) could suppress the evidence that your house got flooded last week, by destroying the evidence. However, a global flood's evidence would not be destroyed, regardless of if it was 5K years ago, or 5 million years ago.

Sprinkling in all the other necessary logical absurdities with it, though those logical absurdities may not falsify the flood on their own merits, are still not necessary, as the flood can be falsified merely by addressing the evidence.

Again, we know what evidence a flood would leave behind. We have none related to a world flood which caused global extinction within a calendar year. The evidence instead suggests no activity in any time frame in which a flood claim could have been made.

On a side note, were you ever going to challenge the scientific community, that homo sapiens are less than 300K years old?

This is primarily because of your failed logic, showing rather obviousely that you keep mixing scientific facts which are testable, repeatable and verifiable with no so much world events such as 911, and you keep denying that you are wrong.

I told you again and again, I am responding to your claim that a global flood is falsifiable, because all your evidence are based on assumptions. All what you state (i.e. age of mt everst etc) are just assumptions, some may not even be scentific (can you find one paper on age of mt everst?)

All those assumptions are assumptions, educated guess that can change. Have you heard of the story of scaplands? Almost all believed it is millions of year old, till some one dired to channledge the current scentific consensus, and now... the scentific community's view on the age changed rather dramatically (and still not all agrees, it is just an assumptions that most geologiest agrees).