What Would Evidence For God Be Like?

[Moral Orel]

So with an open design and open manual, still only Scientologist can operate the emeter and give accurate readings, claim the device to be infallible and can know things happened down to seconds many many years ago? With the claims from the found the best way to make money is a new religion, And you think there are remote possibilities this is not fraud?

I don't find it unreasonable for them to claim that using the E-Meter takes a lot of training, more-so than just picking up a book, no. They don't claim the process is infallible. If L.Ron outright said that he invented the religion to make money, cite it, and I'll concede the point. If not, I don't know what this claim you're claiming really is.

Even if you can't prove something wrong, you will still have the ability of access how likely something is.

Okay, so you can't do it with 100% certainty. That's fine. Tell me, roughly what percent chance do you give it, and show your work as to how you calculated that percentage.

And lastly, so what if you can't prove something wrong? You made the point, tell me what I should conclude from pointing out that fact. Why did you say it? How many times are you going to dodge this question? All I'm asking you to do is explain your argument.

 

[dcalling]

I most certainly am not mixing.

Example... How do we know Lincoln was shot? We actually have scientific evidence. We have the autopsy report from the person whom performed as such.

Example... Let's assume the trade towers were destroyed, and there were no witnesses. What would/could science conclude? You don't think the remaining evidence would point to a collapsed building, with dead bodies, and air plane remanence?

Both of your example uses scientific facts but are not scientific facts themeslves, i.e. they are not repeatable, testable and verifiable. They are only historic events. It is that simple. I doubt you that you don't have the ability to draw such logical conclusions, so I can only conclude that you are trying your best to muddy the waters, which I don't like.

In regards to a claimed global flood, we know what evidence would be left behind for a claimed flood. Do we have as such?

Now you are just grasping at straws. Are you actually going to address any of my points, or are you just going to keep maneuvering around?

As I already told you, pretty much everywhere on earth there are evidences that a lot regions has been under water for a long time, do you dispute that?

And I addressed your points a lot, I keep addressing them and you keep saying that I didn't. So name one that I didn't address.

 

[dcalling]

I don't find it unreasonable for them to claim that using the E-Meter takes a lot of training, more-so than just picking up a book, no. They don't claim the process is infallible. If L.Ron outright said that he invented the religion to make money, cite it, and I'll concede the point. If not, I don't know what this claim you're claiming really is.

It is collaboarted by multiple witnesses. Given how scientology operates, I opt to believe the witnesess. If you can't do a google search and verify it, even if I do it you won't believe it. You claim you don't believe scientology, but given your stance over such overwhelming odds, you definitely appears do.

Okay, so you can't do it with 100% certainty. That's fine. Tell me, roughly what percent chance do you give it, and show your work as to how you calculated that percentage.

And lastly, so what if you can't prove something wrong? You made the point, tell me what I should conclude from pointing out that fact. Why did you say it? How many times are you going to dodge this question? All I'm asking you to do is explain your argument.

There is no such thing as a percentage. To me I 100% believe scientology is a fraud.

There is often a time when you can't prove something wrong (i.e. scientology story about what happened a million year ago), but then there is a time you can definitely tell something religion's core believe is a fraud, in the case of scientolofy that you so favored to defend. I know scientology has a lot of goons out there to intimidating people, I am just not sure if you are willingly believing in that or was paid to do this (or maybe you are trying to make a point but used a rather bad example).

 

[cvanwey]

Both of your example uses scientific facts but are not scientific facts themeslves, i.e. they are not repeatable, testable and verifiable. They are only historic events. It is that simple. I doubt you that you don't have the ability to draw such logical conclusions, so I can only conclude that you are trying your best to muddy the waters, which I don't like.

Then I guess Cosmology is not science, as there exists only one 'big bang' that we are currently aware of. I guess forensics is not science, as each person can only be murdered or die once, in which we investigate the clues left behind.

Any assassination, murder, apparent meteor sighting, damaged tree from 'lighting', etc, can be concluded from later science exclusively, or also reported from humans, which also deems the event historical, while also having science verify characteristics. These are all one time occurrences, sometimes both reported by humans, making them historical one time events, along with investigation, from the scientific arena, to verify later details.

Example: A body is found in the woods. Versus, someone seeing someone shot in the woods and calling it in to the police. One is purely verified (probable time of death, probable method of death, etc..). The historical method, news worthy method, uses all the same scientific tools, but also has a news broadcast associated. All the same...

As I already told you, pretty much everywhere on earth there are evidences that a lot regions has been under water for a long time, do you dispute that?

And as I've said, Mt Everest was concluded to be the result of plate tectonics; due to the evidence. So when (you) mention fossils, but then deny plate tectonics, makes me wonder how selective your conclusions might be? Talk about 'muddying the waters.'

Heck, 'pretty much everywhere on earth there are evidences that a lot regions', which appear to once be connected, appear now spread out, like a puzzle of sorts.

 

[Moral Orel]

It is collaboarted by multiple witnesses. Given how scientology operates, I opt to believe the witnesess. If you can't do a google search and verify it, even if I do it you won't believe it.

What is collaborated by multiple witnesses? That L.Ron outright said it was a hoax? Let me guess, some folks who are ex-members and now hate Scientology said bad things about Scientology. I wouldn't trust an atheist to give me an accurate portrayal of what goes on in a Christian church either. Would you?

Because, honestly, even though I think he cooked it all up himself, I wouldn't really expect him to just admit it out loud. Some criminals are that stupid, but plenty of them aren't. I would expect some substantial evidence that he did something so foolish, more so than just testimony from some jaded ex-Scientologists, yes.

There is no such thing as a percentage.

What in the world? "No such thing as a percentage"? Do you mean, "I have no idea how to calculate the percentage"? Because that just means you don't know.

To me I 100% believe scientology is a fraud.

That's your opinion, it's mine too. But I can't prove my opinion is right, and neither can you.

There is often a time when you can't prove something wrong (i.e. scientology story about what happened a million year ago), but then there is a time you can definitely tell something religion's core believe is a fraud, in the case of scientolofy that you so favored to defend.

And there isn't anything about Scientology that you can prove wrong either, otherwise you would answer my question: "How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electricity in the human body?".

For Pete's sake, just admit that you don't know and can't know. It's okay. It doesn't make Scientology suddenly credible; there's still no reason to believe it, and that's enough.

I know scientology has a lot of goons out there to intimidating people, I am just not sure if you are willingly believing in that or was paid to do this (or maybe you are trying to make a point but used a rather bad example).

No, it's a great example. People shouldn't believe Scientology because there's zero evidence for it. That's very different from proving it wrong though.


But most important of all...

So what if you can't prove something wrong?!!

I'm going to keep asking, you're going to keep dodging... But here's my guess.

You think that you can prove all the other religions wrong in one way or another, and by process of elimination, you can't prove Christianity wrong, so it must be right. Right? But like you've shown with your attempt to disprove Scientology, an absolute joke of a religion, your conclusion doesn't follow from what little evidence you've presented. That's why you can't just admit that all the other Woo out there is unfalsifiable, because you think it's a point for the Christian side. But it's not. Even if you are right that you can disprove all the other religions in the world, it still wouldn't be evidence for Christianity. They can all be wrong.

You could tell me how my guess is wrong, but that would require answering the question, and I suspect you'll be dodging that one till the end of time.

 

[dcalling]

That's your opinion, it's mine too. But I can't prove my opinion is right, and neither can you.

OK so at least we both agree that scientilogy is 100% fraud.

But why do you think you can't prove it wrong if you think it is 100% fraud?

And there isn't anything about Scientology that you can prove wrong either, otherwise you would answer my question: "How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electricity in the human body?".

For Pete's sake, just admit that you don't know and can't know. It's okay. It doesn't make Scientology suddenly credible; there's still no reason to believe it, and that's enough.

No, it's a great example. People shouldn't believe Scientology because there's zero evidence for it. That's very different from proving it wrong though.

This is totally different, I don't believe in Scientology not because there is zero evidence for it, but because the evidences of the frauds. You don't accuse someone of fraud when there is no evidence for it, but when you found actual evidence of fraud, right?

So what if you can't prove something wrong?!!

There are many things that you can't prove right or wrong, in that case they stay a possible assumption. This happens in science all the time, from big ban, multi-verse, string theory, they all belong to the same.

 

[dcalling]

Then I guess Cosmology is not science, as there exists only one 'big bang' that we are currently aware of. I guess forensics is not science, as each person can only be murdered or die once, in which we investigate the clues left behind.

Any assassination, murder, apparent meteor sighting, damaged tree from 'lighting', etc, can be concluded from later science exclusively, or also reported from humans, which also deems the event historical, while also having science verify characteristics. These are all one time occurrences, sometimes both reported by humans, making them historical one time events, along with investigation, from the scientific arena, to verify later details.

Example: A body is found in the woods. Versus, someone seeing someone shot in the woods and calling it in to the police. One is purely verified (probable time of death, probable method of death, etc..). The historical method, news worthy method, uses all the same scientific tools, but also has a news broadcast associated. All the same...

As I said again and again (and this is just simple logic, which you seems to unable to understand). Scientific facts must be repeatable, verifiable and testable, i.e. pure water is H2O. Even if the worlds documents got destroy those facts stays.

The things you listed (i.e. 911, meteror sighting) are only historical events, the accuracy of those depend on context and number of collaborators (human or records). If the world got destroied they are gone.

Now do you understand?

And as I've said, Mt Everest was concluded to be the result of plate tectonics; due to the evidence. So when (you) mention fossils, but then deny plate tectonics, makes me wonder how selective your conclusions might be? Talk about 'muddying the waters.'

Heck, 'pretty much everywhere on earth there are evidences that a lot regions', which appear to once be connected, appear now spread out, like a puzzle of sorts.

Which one of my post denied movement of tectonics plates?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

People ask for evidence for God's existence, but what would evidence for God's existence be like? Join me on this thought experiment...

Suppose that an all powerful, wise, invisible, eternal, all-knowing, and righteous God created a cosmos like the one we inhabit.

Suppose further that this God created creatures like us who are capable of knowing and worshipping Him.

Suppose a bit further that these creatures decided to rebel against their creator, refusing to give Him the worship due to Him and seeking to build a world without Him (although within the world that He created).

What would evidence for the existence of this God be like?

One thing I can think of: Very specific and very unlikely predictions about the future. God does not have to physically speak these predictions to me, they can come via some sort of interpreter.

For example, if a friend told me, "Yahweh told me that at 10:24:43 a.m. on May 24, 2019, an 1 km x 1 km x 1 km asteroid will hit northern Canada (65 N, 114 W)."

If that prediction came true, it would be very difficult for me to not believe that Yahweh is a real entity. I would still be wholly confused by about 1000 other things about Christianity, but I would be fairly convinced that, at bare minimum, the Christian God exists.

I would be very intrigued as to how my friend actually came to this knowledge (i.e. did Yahweh speak audibly and if so, from where? Did my friend just have some sort of "feeling" from Yahweh? Did Yahweh write it down for her?). But again, it would be pretty hard for me to deny that some entity called "Yahweh" exists and this entity has some pretty impressive abilities.

Other predictions would also suffice, even if they were tragic/irrelevant/useful:

"At 18:45 on November 3, 2019, Jacob Brandt will die in a fatal car accident on the I-19, 10 km south of Tucson."

"The winning lottery numbers for this coming weeks' Powerball draw will be 23-27-36-40-58"

"Sidney Crosby will score 6 goals in a span of 6 minutes in his next game. However, the team will still lose 7-6 in overtime."

Etc.

All of the above are completely natural events. They are just unlikely and it would take supernatural knowledge to be able to predict such events. The probability of predicting such an event as these is phenomenally small.

 

[cvanwey]

As I said again and again (and this is just simple logic, which you seems to unable to understand). Scientific facts must be repeatable, verifiable and testable, i.e. pure water is H2O. Even if the worlds documents got destroy those facts stays.

I have addressed this point already. Read below...

The things you listed (i.e. 911, meteror sighting) are only historical events, the accuracy of those depend on context and number of collaborators (human or records). If the world got destroied they are gone.

Let's cut to the chase. Claimed food events are testable, and repeatably testable at that... We know the characteristics of what makes a flood. The evidence left makes no suggestions of such a claimed flood, local or global, from Biblical proportions.

And when you state 'if the world was destroyed', I find this odd, as if the world was destroyed, most such claims, testable or not, could not be duplicated and replicated. The earth is the 'canvass' for such repeatable testing; all floods included.

Which one of my post denied movement of tectonics plates?

Let's go back to post #189. Maybe my use of the word 'deny' wasn't the best choice of words. However, to understand plate tectonics, you understand that such events happen slowly and very gradually.

The flood waters would need to be high enough to require supplemental oxygen and all surviving life to withstand ~60 degrees below zero temperatures for months. Why?

You are suggesting the flood happened after Mt. Everest existed? This mountain top is almost 30K feet in height above sea level.

You now have a choice...

1. The flood happened before plate tectonics formed Mt. Everest. Meaning, Noah would have to of existed millions of years ago, which directly flies in the face of the claimed age of homo sapiens - by millions of years!

2. Or, the flood happened after plate tectonics formed Mt. Everest. The flood would have needed to be higher than the peak of Everest. Meaning, Noah and friends somehow all did not require supplemental oxygen for about a year, and all species could survive temperatures of 40-60 below for a year?

Which starting point would you like to assert, 1. or 2.?

 

[Ana the Ist]

People ask for evidence for God's existence, but what would evidence for God's existence be like? Join me on this thought experiment...

Suppose that an all powerful, wise, invisible, eternal, all-knowing, and righteous God created a cosmos like the one we inhabit.

Suppose further that this God created creatures like us who are capable of knowing and worshipping Him.

Suppose a bit further that these creatures decided to rebel against their creator, refusing to give Him the worship due to Him and seeking to build a world without Him (although within the world that He created).

What would evidence for the existence of this God be like?

Are the qualities of this god only those listed?

 

[dcalling]

I have addressed this point already. Read below...

Nope, from your own post it is clear you don't understand the difference between testable/repeatable and verifable facts and historical events.

Let's cut to the chase. Claimed food events are testable, and repeatably testable at that... We know the characteristics of what makes a flood. The evidence left makes no suggestions of such a claimed flood, local or global, from Biblical proportions.

Exactly how are you able to repeatbly test and verify how the world should look like after a global flood, and the flood happened thousand many millions of years ago? How do you know how the earth moved within this period and you can still see all the evidences? Do you know how many times we humans has made the claim that xxx must happened because of yyy and yet turned out to be wrong? This is the part you clearly does not understand repeatable verifiable testable facts and historical events or human assumptions.

And when you state 'if the world was destroyed', I find this odd, as if the world was destroyed, most such claims, testable or not, could not be duplicated and replicated. The earth is the 'canvass' for such repeatable testing; all floods included.

That is just one example. Do you see how just a big war is enough to wipe out (or muddy up) history simply due to the loss of life and records?

Let's go back to post #189. Maybe my use of the word 'deny' wasn't the best choice of words. However, to understand plate tectonics, you understand that such events happen slowly and very gradually.

The flood waters would need to be high enough to require supplemental oxygen and all surviving life to withstand ~60 degrees below zero temperatures for months. Why?

You are suggesting the flood happened after Mt. Everest existed? This mountain top is almost 30K feet in height above sea level.

You now have a choice...

1. The flood happened before plate tectonics formed Mt. Everest. Meaning, Noah would have to of existed millions of years ago, which directly flies in the face of the claimed age of homo sapiens - by millions of years!

2. Or, the flood happened after plate tectonics formed Mt. Everest. The flood would have needed to be higher than the peak of Everest. Meaning, Noah and friends somehow all did not require supplemental oxygen for about a year, and all species could survive temperatures of 40-60 below for a year?

Which starting point would you like to assert, 1. or 2.?

I have issues with your question because they are limited by your obvious assumptions. How do you know Mt Everest was there for Millions of years and not thousands or Billions of years? Why do you assume it is only millions?

 

[cvanwey]

Nope, from your own post it is clear you don't understand the difference between testable/repeatable and verifable facts and historical events.

I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again. If you don't get it, that's on you.

Exactly how are you able to repeatbly test and verify how the world should look like after a global flood, and the flood happened thousand many millions of years ago? How do you know how the earth moved within this period and you can still see all the evidences? Do you know how many times we humans has made the claim that xxx must happened because of yyy and yet turned out to be wrong? This is the part you clearly does not understand repeatable verifiable testable facts and historical events or human assumptions.

I'm growing tired of explaining mundane things to you. I'll try one more time, and maybe (this time) you will understand...

We know what evidence a flood would leave behind, as we have experienced floods and can study the effects of such, (repeatedly, and verifiably, after it happens, over and over again)... For starters, you would observe a single layer, where you see a mix of all wild life, mixed with humans, in one chaotic layer.

That is just one example. Do you see how just a big war is enough to wipe out (or muddy up) history simply due to the loss of life and records?

We are speaking about a flood. How would a war wipe out such past asserted evidence?

I have issues with your question because they are limited by your obvious assumptions. How do you know Mt Everest was there for Millions of years and not thousands or Billions of years? Why do you assume it is only millions?

Because this is where the evidence suggests, based upon the link given, for starters. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise, or are we instead going to play the game of 'hypotheticals', to support your wishful thinking?

So please answer even a more basic question... We can then start from there.

Do you assert A) or B)?

A) The flood happened before Mt. Everest raised above sea level?
B) The flood happened after Mt. Everest raised above sea level?

As indicated in the prior response, either response introduces implications which are hard to reconcile.

 

[dcalling]

I'm not going to repeat myself, yet again. If you don't get it, that's on you.

When you erronousely states that the even of 911 as a repeatable verifiable testable scientific facts, and refuse to acknowledge your errors, you are either incapable of logic or just plan won't admit you are wrong. Which is it?

I'm growing tired of explaining mundane things to you. I'll try one more time, and maybe (this time) you will understand...

We know what evidence a flood would leave behind, as we have experienced floods and can study the effects of such, (repeatedly, and verifiably, after it happens, over and over again)... For starters, you would observe a single layer, where you see a mix of all wild life, mixed with humans, in one chaotic layer.

As I stated again and again, earth change over the years, and it is very likely God did some huge change just to receed the flood (i.e. lower part of the terrian and/or raise other parts to make the water ceeds faster). How do you even know it is just a single layer for such a huge global flood? It could be multiple layers due to different levels of water.

We are speaking about a flood. How would a war wipe out such past asserted evidence?

For a flood, a world changing event will definitly change much of the land scope, i.e. plate movenent, huge earthquakes or voluncan erruptions.

Because this is where the evidence suggests, based upon the link given, for starters. Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise, or are we instead going to play the game of 'hypotheticals', to support your wishful thinking?

So please answer even a more basic question... We can then start from there.

Do you assert A) or B)?

A) The flood happened before Mt. Everest raised above sea level?
B) The flood happened after Mt. Everest raised above sea level?

As indicated in the prior response, either response introduces implications which are hard to reconcile.

I am more towards A, flood happens first and God raies/lowers terrian afterwards to make dry lands.

 

[cvanwey]

When you erronousely states that the even of 911 as a repeatable verifiable testable scientific facts, and refuse to acknowledge your errors, you are either incapable of logic or just plan won't admit you are wrong. Which is it?

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Furthermore, you appear to be desperately cleaving to a minor topic, which effectively gets us nowhere; even IF you were correct, which you are not, for the reasons mentioned below...

Here's another option. As stated prior, studying the after effects of a flood (or) a collapsed building - (911) would be the same. If the world exploded, they would BOTH be gone. All your evidence for BOTH would be gone. You could not repeatably study the cause of either one. But guess what, you could not repeatably study the effects of most other things associated with earth.

Remember, I also mentioned meteors hitting the ground on earth. If the world blew up, I could study the age and claims of meteors hitting other moons or planets, only provided I could travel there. The same with H20, if water exists on other planets, I could only repeatably test for H20, provided I could travel to them.

You are effectively stating that if you destroy all evidence, you cannot test for them. Well, duh! The 'duh' part comes below...

To drive this trivial point home once and for all, I'm going to lay out parallel points...

- I could repeatably study the effects of a claimed collapsed building (911), provided we do not destroy all the evidence, which in the instance for 911, we did, to clean it up - (destroying all evidence). But luckily for the case of 911, we also have another point of evidence, video Unless that all gets blown up too?

- However, I could still repeatably study the effects of a meteor hitting the ground on planet earth. But if I blow up the earth, and state a meteor hit the earth, could I study the effects on how meteors impact earth specifically? Not if the earth was blown up. So in this case, 911 is still ahead, because I may also have video, which already places it ahead of earth floods, and meteors hitting earth.

- However, I could repeatedly test for a claimed earth flood, provided earth does not blow up. If earth blows up, I could also claim earth never existed now couldn't I?

To drive the point home... We can repeatably test for claimed floods on earth. Unless you blew it up

To test for something, you need material to test. However, there exists many fields in science, which require earth for repeatable testing, it's called the earth sciences

As I stated again and again, earth change over the years, and it is very likely God did some huge change just to receed the flood (i.e. lower part of the terrian and/or raise other parts to make the water ceeds faster). How do you even know it is just a single layer for such a huge global flood? It could be multiple layers due to different levels of water.

Because the 'receding' water would have needed to happen rapidly, so all creatures could walk on dry land and get back to their habitats. There would be no 'flood layers'. Only one... There would be one big layer of chaos, as soon as the water subsided swiftly enough for all animals to return home, or instead die of starvation or natural causes, awaiting the water levels to drop all the way.

For a flood, a world changing event will definitly change much of the land scope, i.e. plate movenent, huge earthquakes or voluncan erruptions.

All evidence for plate tectonics suggests very slow and gradual movement. Do you have evidence to suggest an abrupt shifting in plates?

I am more towards A, flood happens first and God raies/lowers terrian afterwards to make dry lands.

Then you must begin to present your case that Noah existed millions of years ago. Why?

- Evidence suggests Mt. Everest has existed for millions of years.
- Evidence suggests homo sapiens have not existed for millions of years.

Thus, Noah may not have existed yet

 

[dcalling]

You are presenting a false dichotomy. Furthermore, you appear to be desperately cleaving to a minor topic, which effectively gets us nowhere; even IF you were correct, which you are not, for the reasons mentioned below...

Here's another option. As stated prior, studying the after effects of a flood (or) a collapsed building - (911) would be the same. If the world exploded, they would BOTH be gone. All your evidence for BOTH would be gone. You could not repeatably study the cause of either one. But guess what, you could not repeatably study the effects of most other things associated with earth.

Remember, I also mentioned meteors hitting the ground on earth. If the world blew up, I could study the age and claims of meteors hitting other moons or planets, only provided I could travel there. The same with H20, if water exists on other planets, I could only repeatably test for H20, provided I could travel to them.

You are effectively stating that if you destroy all evidence, you cannot test for them. Well, duh! The 'duh' part comes below...

To drive this trivial point home once and for all, I'm going to lay out parallel points...

- I could repeatably study the effects of a claimed collapsed building (911), provided we do not destroy all the evidence, which in the instance for 911, we did, to clean it up - (destroying all evidence). But luckily for the case of 911, we also have another point of evidence, video Unless that all gets blown up too?

- However, I could still repeatably study the effects of a meteor hitting the ground on planet earth. But if I blow up the earth, and state a meteor hit the earth, could I study the effects on how meteors impact earth specifically? Not if the earth was blown up. So in this case, 911 is still ahead, because I may also have video, which already places it ahead of earth floods, and meteors hitting earth.

- However, I could repeatedly test for a claimed earth flood, provided earth does not blow up. If earth blows up, I could also claim earth never existed now couldn't I?

To drive the point home... We can repeatably test for claimed floods on earth. Unless you blew it up

To test for something, you need material to test. However, there exists many fields in science, which require earth for repeatable testing, it's called the earth sciences



Because the 'receding' water would have needed to happen rapidly, so all creatures could walk on dry land and get back to their habitats. There would be no 'flood layers'. Only one... There would be one big layer of chaos, as soon as the water subsided swiftly enough for all animals to return home, or instead die of starvation or natural causes, awaiting the water levels to drop all the way.

This is not a minor topic, it is a boundry of your ability on logical thinking.
Scientific facts are testable, verifiable and repeatable, which I stated multiple times, and you keep mention events such as 911 as scientific facts when they are just events, and tried your best to muddy the waters and refuse to admit that you are wrong.

In your above example, if a great war destroys the earth (or just all the people and records about 911), then no one will know 911 even exists.

You can repeatably study the after math of meter hitting earth, but each hit is just an event, not scientific fact. It is simple logic.

To drive the point home, you can repeatly test local floods and its after math, but you can never test the validaity of a global flood and its after math after thousand or millions of years. You can only assume it.

All evidence for plate tectonics suggests very slow and gradual movement. Do you have evidence to suggest an abrupt shifting in plates?

Nope, but I believe God can move it real fast, which of course you don't believe

Then you must begin to present your case that Noah existed millions of years ago. Why?

- Evidence suggests Mt. Everest has existed for millions of years.
- Evidence suggests homo sapiens have not existed for millions of years.

Thus, Noah may not have existed yet

Here is another logical barrier for you, let's see if you can over come it:
Evidence only suggests Mt. Everest existed for millions of years, so is it definite that Mt. Everest existed for millions of years?
Bonus question:
At what height do you count Mt Everest as "exists"? When do you think (and what peer reviewed paper) Mt Everest reached that height?

 

[Moral Orel]

OK so at least we both agree that scientilogy is 100% fraud.

But why do you think you can't prove it wrong if you think it is 100% fraud?

Instincts, pretty much. I can't prove my instincts are right, even to myself though. I think I'm pretty good at spotting BS, and Scientology has a lot of the signs of a BS story. But it's entirely possible that my confidence in my skills at spotting bologna is based on confirmation bias. Even if my instincts are good, I can't prove that they're right this time.

This is totally different, I don't believe in Scientology not because there is zero evidence for it, but because the evidences of the frauds. You don't accuse someone of fraud when there is no evidence for it, but when you found actual evidence of fraud, right?

Except you can't show evidence of fraud. How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electrical signals in our bodies?

The only other bit of "proof" is that you've alluded that someone, somewhere, said that L.Ron confessed to being a conman. Best case scenario, if you can establish the trustworthiness of the witnesses and eliminate any bias or motive to lie, that's evidence. You've got a he said / she said situation, and you can't prove one of them is telling the truth over the other.

There are many things that you can't prove right or wrong, in that case they stay a possible assumption.

And? We can say that about absolutely anything that's unfalsifiable, which is literally an infinite amount of things. Why make the point about Christianity? It would be a bit like saying, "This grain of sand is a shade of brown". So my question is still, "So what?".

 

[cvanwey]

This is not a minor topic, it is a boundry of your ability on logical thinking.
Scientific facts are testable, verifiable and repeatable, which I stated multiple times, and you keep mention events such as 911 as scientific facts when they are just events, and tried your best to muddy the waters and refuse to admit that you are wrong.

Post #234.

Yes, many things can be tested and retested. And I did not only mention 911.

Many things can be tested, verifiable, and repeatable.

Yes, if you remove the evidence in which it left behind, you could no longer test it. But this holds true for anything.

Please just let it go already...

In your above example, if a great war destroys the earth (or just all the people and records about 911), then no one will know 911 even exists.

If the sun gets to close to the earth, vaporizing all the H20 - (your example), '(or just all the people and records about [H20])', 'then no one will know [H20] even exists.'

I may find H20 on another planet. Just like I may also find evidence of meteor crashes on that very same planet :0

You can repeatably study the after math of meter hitting earth, but each hit is just an event, not scientific fact. It is simple logic.

If we have the remains of a meteor, embedded in an area, where the meteor material is completely foreign to it's entire surroundings, along with disturbed surroundings, it somehow is not concluded to be a scientific fact?

What if someone came along and stated the that was not a meteor in the ground, but it was instead a mountain. We could not conduct geological tests to reach a conclusion?

Oh, I get it now...! If I read it from a book, and then I go to find it somewhere, anywhere, and do not find any evidence of such, then it is just an 'event'. Like 'Noah's flood' claim maybe?

To drive the point home, you can repeatly test local floods and its after math, but you can never test the validaity of a global flood and its after math after thousand or millions of years. You can only assume it.

No no, and no...

There exists many methods to demonstrates a flood could not have happened, the way the Bible describes it. All verified by science. It is the collaboration of all points placed together, which makes the likelihood of a flood claim extremely improbably. Or dare I say, practically impossible... When compared to the evidence we are left to study...

Nope, but I believe God can move it real fast, which of course you don't believe

Didn't you state somewhere that plate tectonics may have been caused by a flood? If so, you would have a whole lot of explaining to do...

Here is another logical barrier for you, let's see if you can over come it:
Evidence only suggests Mt. Everest existed for millions of years, so is it definite that Mt. Everest existed for millions of years?

Huh?

Bonus question:
At what height do you count Mt Everest as "exists"? When do you think (and what peer reviewed paper) Mt Everest reached that height?

Quite frankly, it would not matter. If anything, you will shoot yourself in the foot even worse, for suggesting this particular direction...

When Mt. Everest was only a few feet tall, shortly after the plates collided, this was even longer ago. Which would require Noah to be even older.

So I again ask...

Do you really think humans existed millions and millions of years ago, to the capacity required to build Arks, and follow orders?

 

[dcalling]

Post #234.

Yes, many things can be tested and retested. And I did not only mention 911.

Many things can be tested, verifiable, and repeatable.

Yes, if you remove the evidence in which it left behind, you could no longer test it. But this holds true for anything.

Please just let it go already...

I already told you, it is a boundry of your ability on logical thinking.You need to be able to follow simple logic first before we can discuss others which requires more logic.
Scientific facts are testable, verifiable and repeatable, which I stated multiple times, and you keep mention events such as 911 as scientific facts when they are just events, and tried your best to muddy the waters and refuse to admit that you are wrong.

If the sun gets to close to the earth, vaporizing all the H20 - (your example), '(or just all the people and records about [H20])', 'then no one will know [H20] even exists.'

I may find H20 on another planet. Just like I may also find evidence of meteor crashes on that very same planet :0

Again, you need to be able to follow simple logic, first that the sun vaporizing all H2O is not my example, and second you can always find H20 (not just from other planet, but by combine H2 and O2). You can't do that to 911 or other historical events.

If we have the remains of a meteor, embedded in an area, where the meteor material is completely foreign to it's entire surroundings, along with disturbed surroundings, it somehow is not concluded to be a scientific fact?

What if someone came along and stated the that was not a meteor in the ground, but it was instead a mountain. We could not conduct geological tests to reach a conclusion?

Oh, I get it now...! If I read it from a book, and then I go to find it somewhere, anywhere, and do not find any evidence of such, then it is just an 'event'. Like 'Noah's flood' claim maybe?



No no, and no...

There exists many methods to demonstrates a flood could not have happened, the way the Bible describes it. All verified by science. It is the collaboration of all points placed together, which makes the likelihood of a flood claim extremely improbably. Or dare I say, practically impossible... When compared to the evidence we are left to study...

Good, but instead of just stating something is impossible, state your evidences.

Didn't you state somewhere that plate tectonics may have been caused by a flood? If so, you would have a whole lot of explaining to do...

Not only you need to get your logic straight, you also need to stop putting word into my mouth. I challenge you to find such post of mine, want to accept that challenge?

Huh?



Quite frankly, it would not matter. If anything, you will shoot yourself in the foot even worse, for suggesting this particular direction...

When Mt. Everest was only a few feet tall, shortly after the plates collided, this was even longer ago. Which would require Noah to be even older.

So I again ask...

Do you really think humans existed millions and millions of years ago, to the capacity required to build Arks, and follow orders?

Again, we are going in loops, you did not answer my question which will blow your question into pieces. How sure are you at the age of Mt. Everest? How do you know if it is millions or billions year old? Can you even answer that question?

 

[dcalling]

Instincts, pretty much. I can't prove my instincts are right, even to myself though. I think I'm pretty good at spotting BS, and Scientology has a lot of the signs of a BS story. But it's entirely possible that my confidence in my skills at spotting bologna is based on confirmation bias. Even if my instincts are good, I can't prove that they're right this time.

Lol, so you act on your instincts? We are not animals, we SHOULD act on current available evidences.

Except you can't show evidence of fraud. How do you know that spiritual trauma doesn't manifest itself in physical reality as electrical signals in our bodies?

It is a physical device, and aside from such small group of people, no one was able to archive the same, not any peer reviewed paper can confirm such things, you don't find it strange at all?

The only other bit of "proof" is that you've alluded that someone, somewhere, said that L.Ron confessed to being a conman. Best case scenario, if you can establish the trustworthiness of the witnesses and eliminate any bias or motive to lie, that's evidence. You've got a he said / she said situation, and you can't prove one of them is telling the truth over the other.

And? We can say that about absolutely anything that's unfalsifiable, which is literally an infinite amount of things. Why make the point about Christianity? It would be a bit like saying, "This grain of sand is a shade of brown". So my question is still, "So what?".

The majority of this is my amazement that you can't see the difference between religion such as Scientology and the other major ones. It may not surprise me since you act on instincts

 

[Moral Orel]

It is a physical device, and aside from such small group of people, no one was able to archive the same, not any peer reviewed paper can confirm such things, you don't find it strange at all?

That's not proof. That's not even evidence. That's a lack of evidence. I thought it was you theists were supposed to be the ones pointing out that "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".

The majority of this is my amazement that you can't see the difference between religion such as Scientology and the other major ones.

Ironically, I can't believe that you can't see how similar they all are.