What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[Ken-1122]

You mean like not to praise yourself but let others do it. There is a difference in me going around claiming I'm a good man and another if others make that claim.

I'm not suggesting he should have went around bragging; I'm saying he should have been the one to put God's message in writing. Other religious leaders were able to write their holy books without bragging; So could have Jesus! Don't cha think?

Now according to Jesus there will be someone who does glorify himself and the world will accept him.

Why hasn't he done this already?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Fair enough. But what about Plato, Socrates, Homer, Cyrus, Julius Caesar ect. By your criteria you would have to doubt almost all of ancient history.

Why? Are they claimed to have done stuff that is humanly impossible? If so then they should be doubted; if not, then you've misunderstood my criteria.

I'll ask him next time I see him. However are you telling me that a document claiming to be written by Jesus Christ is really all it wold take to make you a believer?

I am saying a document written by Jesus is all it would take to convince me those are his ideas; not somebody elses. Which is more than we have now.

Well first of all, there was only one universal church prior to the reformation. So to say Catholic Church as opposed to just the church is a bit of a misnomer. The issue they were deciding was not what books were authentic enough, but what books were authentic at all. It was not an eeny meeny miney mo process. They followed a strict criteria and in the end the books they canonized were essentially the books regarded as authentic by the early church. There is no reason or evidence to believe that there are any authentic but un-canonized works out there.

And all this was accomplished by flawed and imperfect men. If Jesus wrote the bible all this wouldn't be necessary.

Since that is the case for all writings, I don't know why that would be a problem only for the Bible.

Because if Jesus wrote the Bible, it would be perfect; other books don't make that claiml

They decided which books were authentic or not, which is how all of ancient history is decided.

Jesus claims to be perfect. Other people in ancient history don't make such a claim.

Not of necessity. Sometimes those emotions are justified and perfectly rational.

Yeah for flawed and imperfect humans! If you are perfect, totally aware of the past, present, and future, why would you have a need for regret, anger, or to change your mind?

Alright then. However to help keep us focused on the subject at hand and to avoid anyone else jumping in, would you consider moving this part of our conversation over to the formal debate section?
My contention is this: Using standard methodology the resurrection can be established to the same degree of certainty as other ancient historic event.

I don't think I would be much good for you, I don't know much about ancient history or the criteria established for the claim to be considered credible

I know more about the story of Jesus than I know of any other ancient historical figure. That's why I am able to be more skeptical about Jesus than the others.

Ken

 

[jax5434]

Why? Are they claimed to have done stuff that is humanly impossible?

I don't know.

If so then they should be doubted;

Yes, but the claims also need to be examined.

not, then you've misunderstood my criteria.

I understand, but it seems more an agenda than a criteria

I am saying a document written by Jesus is all it would take to convince me those are his ideas; not somebody elses.

How would a bible that Jesus wrote differ from what we have?

Which is more than we have now.

For pretty much everyone prior to the printing press.

And all this was accomplished by flawed and imperfect men.
Everything is accomplished by flawed and imperfect men. Are you saying that flawed and imperfect men can never reach a right decision?
What books do you think they erred on? What books should have been included that weren't? Or included but should not have been? You must have some idea or else how do you know they were wrong in their choices?

If Jesus wrote the bible all this wouldn't be necessary.

I doubt it would make any difference at all

Because if Jesus wrote the Bible, it would be perfect;

How would it look different from what we have now?
How do you know its not perfect now?
(per•fect: adjective,
1. having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be.as not merely human.)

other books don't make that claiml

The bible doesn't make that claim either. Some well meaning but mis-guided people do.

Jesus claims to be perfect. Other people in ancient history don't make such a claim.

Can't argue with that.

Yeah for flawed and imperfect humans! If you are perfect, totally aware of the past, present, and future, why would you have a need for regret, anger, or to change your mind?

Because we are not robots. By sovereignly deciding to give us free agency he has allowed us to sometimes thwart his will.

I don't think I would be much good for you, I don't know much about ancient history or the criteria established for the claim to be considered credible

Then you really can't say the resurrection never happened can you? Unless you are just making a statement of faith

I know more about the story of Jesus than I know of any other ancient historical figure.

No offense but most of what you think you know seems to have come very unreliable sources.

That's why I am able to be more skeptical about Jesus than the others.

But it is a skepticism resting on unsound scholarship.
God Bless
Jax

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What does that even mean. Our common sense understanding of reality is exactly what I said. So if it contradicts it which is more what causes things to be the one we see or the one we dont. Which set of physics shall we go by to determine how things work in this world.

Quantum physics. I've said that three or four times now.

Of course and I'm not saying that quantum physics itself is some far fetched theory. I am saying what it is indicating is pointing to something beyond our reality.

In what way? Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of physical phenomena on the quantum scale.

The bible can give us some indications of who God is. That is what the bible is for. We can read about His qualities but that doesn't mean we can comprehend what it means. I can read about genetics and get some understanding and appreciation of what its about. But i cant comprehend its overall ability. The qualities of God are what God is made up of.

Well they sure act like they are. But they are not just particles like you are trying to make out. They are different to the particles you are thinking of. They can also act like waves. They can also be in many positions at the same time. Yes they are particles with magical abilities.

Quantum physics deals with physical phenomena on a quantum scale. I keep repeating this because you seem to think that it deals with something else altogether.

Take a look at some of the theories scientists are promoting like multi universes. According to that we can have billions of copies of ourselves in other dimensions all doing something different. Or we can be a hologram of ourselves like a projection and fade in and out of reality. That is what scientists are coming up with and it sounds pretty super natural to me. Something we would see in a science fiction movie.

Weird doesn't necessarily mean supernatural. We've been over this before.

The particles that are at the point of existence in the quantum world act like this. They also have other attributes like being able to affect each other at a distance instantaneously. They can also pop in and out of existence and be in many places at the same time because of these attributes. So the bible doesn't have to say God is a particle or wave. The quantum world has the attributes of being many things at the same time and so does God. It says that God was in the beginning. That he is in all things and is everywhere. That he can make things from nothing and that everything is held together by Him. I think that just about covers every possible form that existence can be.

Particles, steve... particles! Not disembodied supernatural agents. You have yet to show me where in the Bible I can find the passage on God quantum tunnelling, or the diffraction pattern he produces, or the particle-wave duality of God. The problem here is that you are cherry-picking from both the Bible and science as it suits you.

No but I,m beginning to think yours is maybe this argument out of ignorance all the time you claim I am doing. I am not just saying God done it and not even try and explain it. I am trying to give it some explanation and that explanation can have just as much possibility as the many far fetched ones that some scientists have come up with which are being accepted as possibilities as well. All based on indirect evidence.

You still haven't answered my question, steve. Suppose that one of those theories were verified and enjoyed widespread empirical support, would you accept it or would you continue to believe the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

But isn't that a bit of a cop out you say that we dont understand the fine tuning of the universe.

No, it's the truth. We don't understand it fully yet.

We do understand there are many constants that hold the universe together. If any of those are changed or were not the way they are and all working together in their right mixes we wouldn't have the same things we have now. We wouldn't have life. This has been a perplexing question for scientists for a long time. But scientists can accept theories that try to address other things that we dont understand like this like multi universes and this is all OK. Its when God is mentioned that it suddenly becomes ignorant.

steve, the God of the gaps is an example of an argument from ignorance.

God of the gaps - RationalWiki

 

[Ken-1122]

I understand, but it seems more an agenda than a criteria

Why do you say that?

How would a bible that Jesus wrote differ from what we have?

For pretty much everyone prior to the printing press Everything is accomplished by flawed and imperfect men. Are you saying that flawed and imperfect men can never reach a right decision?
What books do you think they erred on? What books should have been included that weren't? Or included but should not have been? You must have some idea or else how do you know they were wrong in their choices?

I doubt it would make any difference at all

I am reminded of a saying;

A foolish man's account of a wise man's words are never accurate; because he must translate what he heard into something he can actually understand.

Now I'm not saying those who wrote the Bible were fools, but if Jesus is God and God is all knowing.... then compared to Jesus they were fools.
Words of wisdom should come from the source; not second hand information. The bible is second hand information, and that makes it suspect in my eyes.

Because we are not robots. By sovereignly deciding to give us free agency he has allowed us to sometimes thwart his will.

If God knows everything he knows what we are going to do before we do it! So why would he be angry? Why would he regret?

Then you really can't say the resurrection never happened can you?

I am saying I have no reason to believe it happened.

Unless you are just making a statement of faith

To doubt something is not an statement of faith; it's the opposite of faith.

Ken

 

[stevevw]

PJ Media » There Are No Such Things as ‘Scientists’

I think science has its place but it doesn't mean that there are those who are scientists dont have a faith in some of the things they present. Especially lately with what has been discovered about quantum physics. But some of what they are seeing is causing them to think along these lines and move into the realms of beyond how science works. It cant be helped because that is what they are seeing and that is the only way they can address it at the moment.

Scientist can have faith in what they believe and they can even make things look better than they are. They can stack the deck in their favor and be bias because they are humans and will do it just like anyone will. The thing is like the article says we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and we just dont know any better sometimes. But they can do the same things they accuse religion of doing. I think overall most are playing it fair but there are more and more who are either not telling the whole story for one reason or another or are beginning to take on a thinking that is going beyond what can be verified with testable evidence.

I think he makes a very good point.

But we know Hawkins is a qualified scientists. His work with other things that has made him where he is today can be verified. He cant give a lecture of physics if he doesn't know about it. It's when they get into the areas beyond this like black holes and multi universes which is happening more and more that it becomes mixed with some faith and speculation. Some start to believe in these things like its part of their religion. Its like Dawkins and Lawrence Krause going around in recent times like it is a crusade bagging religion and trying to promote some crazy theories that are not proven. They talk about them like they are. Well especially Dawkins does.

 

[stevevw]

Quantum physics. I've said that three or four times now.

So quantum physics is what is actually driving our reality and is what makes things from the point of nothing. So this is where God is mostly seen at the point of where something comes from nothing in this invisible world.

In what way? Quantum mechanics describes the behaviour of physical phenomena on the quantum scale.

Our reality reacts in a certain way. We know that if we do something we can predict the outcomes. We know that something on one side of the world cannot affect something on the other instantaneously. Unless it is connected by a wire or something and then its not immediate. But in the quantum world an action can have many different outcomes. So the action and cause are not the same as we have come to know in our reality. Yet scientists say it is the quantum world which is really behind everything and in everything. So which way do we assess things and measure them by the quantum world or by our reality if we truly want to understand our existence. If we cant find a connection between the two worlds then we may have to revise everything we have come to understand about our world.

Quantum physics deals with physical phenomena on a quantum scale. I keep repeating this because you seem to think that it deals with something else altogether.

Even though it deals with the quantum world it also applies to our reality and the way we measure things. Measuring things based on our reality maybe a false way of doing things. So it is changing the way we see our world and how we have come to understand the laws and physics of how things really work.

Weird doesn't necessarily mean supernatural. We've been over this before.

Well if you look at some of the hypothesis like the hologram theory then you would think we are in a science fiction movie set in Hollywood. Many of these things are talking about going in one door and coming out the other end in a different world altogether. It all sounds magical and supernatural to me. What does supernatural mean. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
What they are seeing and the way scientists are describing what they are seeing is saying exactly what supernatural means ie beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/video/is-our-universe-a-hologram-video/

Particles, steve... particles! Not disembodied supernatural agents. You have yet to show me where in the Bible I can find the passage on God quantum tunneling, or the diffraction pattern he produces, or the particle-wave duality of God. The problem here is that you are cherry-picking from both the Bible and science as it suits you.

But is seems those particles are becoming other things besides particles. If they are acting like waves and breaking down and transforming into other states at that level then maybe there is this seemingly magical element that particles can become. The matter we see all around us is just the manifestation of those particles. What we see maybe just what we see as the observer.

That seems to be what they are seeing and saying. If this is the case then what would cause this. It certainly isn't anything natural or of this world. There is something magical and supernatural going on beyond our understanding. This is in everything that we see and dont see. It makes up everything and is the driving force of everything. This to me is hoe God is described.

You still haven't answered my question, steve. Suppose that one of those theories were verified and enjoyed widespread empirical support, would you accept it or would you continue to believe the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

But how does that disprove God. If one of the theories is verified it is actually not a good thing for the natural method of seeing things. It just verifies that there is something supernatural happening at work beyond our reality that we know it. It would actually mean that we have to revise everything we understand about our reality. This may change things so that things like the supernatural, life beyond our reality ect have to be accepted.

No, it's the truth. We don't understand it fully yet.

How does it change the fact that it is still fined tuned. In fact it is such a problem for scientists and explaining it that this is why a multi universe theory has been proposed. This deals with the our finely tuned world by adding millions of other worlds. In fact as many worlds as it would take to then say that ours is just one of many and make it not so special. We just happened to end up in the one that was just right for us.

But still there should be all sorts of other strange worlds that didn't quite make our one. They may have another you and me living a slightly different life. They may have hostile existences where there is not like. They may have strange creatures that were born out of different atmospheres and elements. Now to me this is going to a big extreme just to account for our perfect wold I think. This would take just as much if not more faith than God. Why cant people just say we can also add God as one of the hypothesis as He has just as good an explanation if not better. The lengths some will go to not to include God.



steve, the God of the gaps is an example of an argument from ignorance.

God of the gaps - RationalWiki[/quote]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So quantum physics is what is actually driving our reality and is what makes things from the point of nothing. So this is where God is mostly seen at the point of where something comes from nothing in this invisible world.

Our reality reacts in a certain way. We know that if we do something we can predict the outcomes. We know that something on one side of the world cannot affect something on the other instantaneously. Unless it is connected by a wire or something and then its not immediate. But in the quantum world an action can have many different outcomes. So the action and cause are not the same as we have come to know in our reality. Yet scientists say it is the quantum world which is really behind everything and in everything. So which way do we assess things and measure them by the quantum world or by our reality if we truly want to understand our existence. If we cant find a connection between the two worlds then we may have to revise everything we have come to understand about our world.

What do you mean by needing to revise everything about our understanding of the world? I've asked you in the past, and I'm still waiting on a response: Why would we have to revise evolutionary theory, cell theory, or germ theory?

Even though it deals with the quantum world it also applies to our reality and the way we measure things. Measuring things based on our reality maybe a false way of doing things. So it is changing the way we see our world and how we have come to understand the laws and physics of how things really work.

Why would it be a false way of doing things? Recall that Moriarty addresses this in the video on quantum woo. Weird things that happen at the quantum level don't necessarily scale up in the way you seem to think that they do.

Well if you look at some of the hypothesis like the hologram theory then you would think we are in a science fiction movie set in Hollywood. Many of these things are talking about going in one door and coming out the other end in a different world altogether. It all sounds magical and supernatural to me. What does supernatural mean. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
What they are seeing and the way scientists are describing what they are seeing is saying exactly what supernatural means ie beyond scientific understanding and the laws of nature.
Is Our Universe a Hologram? - Scientific American

You've just undermined your own point. They are positing naturalistic explanations, not invoking some supernatural force beyond our understanding.

But is seems those particles are becoming other things besides particles. If they are acting like waves and breaking down and transforming into other states at that level then maybe there is this seemingly magical element that particles can become. The matter we see all around us is just the manifestation of those particles. What we see maybe just what we see as the observer.

That seems to be what they are seeing and saying. If this is the case then what would cause this. It certainly isn't anything natural or of this world. There is something magical and supernatural going on beyond our understanding. This is in everything that we see and dont see. It makes up everything and is the driving force of everything. This to me is hoe God is described.

You need to justify this claim. You've automatically precluded any possible naturalistic explanation, even though one is already available - quantum mechanics. Why?

But how does that disprove God. If one of the theories is verified it is actually not a good thing for the natural method of seeing things. It just verifies that there is something supernatural happening at work beyond our reality that we know it. It would actually mean that we have to revise everything we understand about our reality. This may change things so that things like the supernatural, life beyond our reality ect have to be accepted.

You don't think a verifiable naturalistic explanation for the origin of the cosmos drastically reduces the likelihood of a supernatural explanation being tenable? The question is simply this: if a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the cosmos were verifiable and enjoyed widespread empirical support, would you accept that explanation or would maintain the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo?

How does it change the fact that it is still fined tuned. In fact it is such a problem for scientists and explaining it that this is why a multi universe theory has been proposed. This deals with the our finely tuned world by adding millions of other worlds. In fact as many worlds as it would take to then say that ours is just one of many and make it not so special. We just happened to end up in the one that was just right for us.

But still there should be all sorts of other strange worlds that didn't quite make our one. They may have another you and me living a slightly different life. They may have hostile existences where there is not like. They may have strange creatures that were born out of different atmospheres and elements. Now to me this is going to a big extreme just to account for our perfect wold I think. This would take just as much if not more faith than God. Why cant people just say we can also add God as one of the hypothesis as He has just as good an explanation if not better. The lengths some will go to not to include God.

steve, I keep saying to you, fine, add God as a hypothesis! But stop with the double standards. If you want to treat God as a hypothesis then apply the same standards of scrutiny to that hypothesis as you would to any other. But you don't do that. You demand verifiability, testable predictions, and empirical support of every naturalistic hypothesis that there is, but your standards are much more lax when it comes to your own hypothesis.

I think science has its place but it doesn't mean that there are those who are scientists dont have a faith in some of the things they present. Especially lately with what has been discovered about quantum physics. But some of what they are seeing is causing them to think along these lines and move into the realms of beyond how science works. It cant be helped because that is what they are seeing and that is the only way they can address it at the moment.

Scientist can have faith in what they believe and they can even make things look better than they are. They can stack the deck in their favor and be bias because they are humans and will do it just like anyone will. The thing is like the article says we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and we just dont know any better sometimes. But they can do the same things they accuse religion of doing. I think overall most are playing it fair but there are more and more who are either not telling the whole story for one reason or another or are beginning to take on a thinking that is going beyond what can be verified with testable evidence.

But we know Hawkins is a qualified scientists. His work with other things that has made him where he is today can be verified. He cant give a lecture of physics if he doesn't know about it. It's when they get into the areas beyond this like black holes and multi universes which is happening more and more that it becomes mixed with some faith and speculation. Some start to believe in these things like its part of their religion. Its like Dawkins and Lawrence Krause going around in recent times like it is a crusade bagging religion and trying to promote some crazy theories that are not proven. They talk about them like they are. Well especially Dawkins does.

Faith in science and religion: Truth, authority, and the orderliness of nature.

 

[Smidlee]

Faith in science and religion: Truth, authority, and the orderliness of nature.

If there is anyone who is blinded by his own faith it's Jerry Coyne.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If there is anyone who is blinded by his own faith it's Jerry Coyne.

What faith?

And I thought faith was a virtue?

 

[Smidlee]

What faith?

And I thought faith was a virtue?

He's one of those who tried to claim dogmatically our eye is poorly design but recent studies has refuted that.
I'm not the one who tries to give "faith" a black eye.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He's one of those who tried to claim dogmatically our eye is poorly design but recent studies has refuted that.

Ummm.... ok. I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. What does that have to do with faith?

I'm not the one who tries to give "faith" a black eye.

Clearly not.

 

[Smidlee]

Ummm.... ok. I'm not familiar with what you're referring to. What does that have to do with faith?

His strong faith in evolution blinded him to the fact our eyes are designed the way they are for a reason. I'm not suggesting all evolutionist claimed our eyes were poorly designed as some thought it was too early to made such a claim.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

His strong faith in evolution blinded him to the fact our eyes are designed the way they are for a reason. I'm not suggesting all evolutionist claimed our eyes were poorly designed as some thought it was too early to made such a claim.

But Coyne doesn't need to have faith in evolution because he has reason to believe it's true. In fact, as you probably already know, he wrote a book about why it's true, detailing the evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Faith simply isn't required.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

He's one of those who tried to claim dogmatically our eye is poorly design but recent studies has refuted that.
I'm not the one who tries to give "faith" a black eye.

Well here's a funny thing: Humans usually have only 3 color receptive cones in their eyes. They provide for all the mixes of colors we perceive and everything is really pretty yes? Mantis shrimp have 16 color receptive cones in their God blessed little eyes!!!

Where we see rainbows, they'd see a kaleidoscopic thermo nuclear explosion of absolute glory! I'd pick one up and show it but that bug can punch at the speed of a .22 caliber bullet! If we had a 10th of that power we could throw a baseball into orbit.


A shrimp for the love of God!

 

[Smidlee]

But Coyne doesn't need to have faith in evolution because he has reason to believe it's true. In fact, as you probably already know, he wrote a book about why it's true, detailing the evidence supporting evolutionary theory. Faith simply isn't required.

Coyne often uses the argument "I can't imagine God doing it that way so it's prove evolution." in his book "Why Evolution is True". The eye is one example of this.

But we know Hawkins is a qualified scientists. His work with other things that has made him where he is today can be verified. He cant give a lecture of physics if he doesn't know about it. It's when they get into the areas beyond this like black holes and multi universes which is happening more and more that it becomes mixed with some faith and speculation. Some start to believe in these things like its part of their religion. Its like Dawkins and Lawrence Krause going around in recent times like it is a crusade bagging religion and trying to promote some crazy theories that are not proven. They talk about them like they are. Well especially Dawkins does.

What makes him a qualified scientist? The same thing when it comes to what exactly qualifies someone as an engineer. (there are examples of engineers who don't have a degree in engineering even though today it's harder to be one without a degree) You do consider engineers as scientist or don't you? What sets Hawkins apart is his "far out" theories and not just his knowledge of physics which no doubt a lot others have including many "engineers".

 

[stevevw]

Coyne often uses the argument "I can't imagine God doing it that way so it's prove evolution." in his book "Why Evolution is True". The eye is one example of this.

What makes him a qualified scientist? The same thing when it comes to what exactly qualifies someone as an engineer. (there are examples of engineers who don't have a degree in engineering even though today it's harder to be one without a degree) You do consider engineers as scientist or don't you? What sets Hawkins apart is his "far out" theories and not just his knowledge of physics which no doubt a lot others have including many "engineers".

A person who is a engineer without a degree probably has been self taught. They would have spent a lot of time tinkering around with machinery. So they are still spending a lot of time to learn all about it as though they have gone to uni. I would imagine some of the early pioneers in discovery didn't have degrees but were brilliant minds who thought outside the box. Hawkins is one of those scientists that doesn't restrict himself to the parameters of traditional thinking. He also thinks outside the box and considers other possibilities.

 

[jax5434]

Why do you say that?

Because you want a different criteria to be used for religious history than you do secular history.

I am reminded of a saying;

A foolish man's account of a wise man's words are never accurate; because he must translate what he heard into something he can actually understand.

Now I'm not saying those who wrote the Bible were fools, but if Jesus is God and God is all knowing.... then compared to Jesus they were fools.
Words of wisdom should come from the source; not second hand information. The bible is second hand information, and that makes it suspect in my eyes.

Built in to this statement is the assumption that what they wrote were not the words of Jesus. Do you have any evidence for this? Or is this a statement of personal incredulity? Did you use a criteria to determine this and if so what was it? Otherwise it is an agenda.

If God knows everything he knows what we are going to do before we do it! So why would he be angry? Why would he regret?

Have you ever had teen-age children? He gave us a free will. He doesn't always like what we do with it.

I am saying I have no reason to believe it happened.

Because you will not uncritically look at the evidence. Instead you trust Carrier-esque quality scholars who,in fact, do not know much more than you do.

To doubt something is not an statement of faith; it's the opposite of faith.

To cling to doubt in the face of real, actual, testable, verifiable evidence is pretty much the definition of blind faith.

God Bless
Jax

 

[Ken-1122]

Because you want a different criteria to be used for religious history than you do secular history.

No, as I said before; everybody agrees on the accomplishments of Ceasar and other historical figures; everybody does not agree on Jesus.

Built in to this statement is the assumption that what they wrote were not the words of Jesus. Do you have any evidence for this?

I have already given you the evidence. Do you have evidence outside of the Bible that everything they wrote was accurate? Do you have evidence (outside the bible) that what was written about Jesus in the Quran is inaccurate?

Have you ever had teen-age children? He gave us a free will. He doesn't always like what we do with it.

If I were all knowing and I knew exactly what my teen-ager were going to do, and when he was going to do it; I wouldn't all of a sudden get angry when he does it.

Because you will not uncritically look at the evidence. Instead you trust Carrier-esque quality scholars who,in fact, do not know much more than you do.

To cling to doubt in the face of real, actual, testable, verifiable evidence is pretty much the definition of blind faith.

If you had verifiable evidence that Jesus rose from the grave, you would be "World famous"! You are not thus I suspect you are bluffing. However..... If you think you have such evidence, as I said before; I would be happy to see it.

Ken

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Coyne often uses the argument "I can't imagine God doing it that way so it's prove evolution." in his book "Why Evolution is True". The eye is one example of this.

Again, where's the faith you accused him of?

What makes him a qualified scientist? The same thing when it comes to what exactly qualifies someone as an engineer. (there are examples of engineers who don't have a degree in engineering even though today it's harder to be one without a degree) You do consider engineers as scientist or don't you? What sets Hawkins apart is his "far out" theories and not just his knowledge of physics which no doubt a lot others have including many "engineers".

Coyne makes reference to what qualifies Hawking as a scientist in the article I linked to earlier.