Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you saying that you don't agree that the universe looks designed?
Such as?
Either gravitons or spacetime. The EM force is mediated by photons. The weak force is mediated by W and Z bosons.
Such as?
If it isn't evidence why shouldn't we deny it?
Actually, there is a lot of scientific research demonstrating that natural forces are responsible for the design, such as evolution being responsible for the nested hierarchy.
Who would be here to notice if it weren't?
Where was Jesus proven to be true?
The only reason we can see mass is due to mass acting on photons. When we feel an object it is the electromagnetic force that we are experiencing. The forces are all a full part of the material world.
No, it does not look designed.
There are as many claims of miracles from other religions as there are from Christianity. Similarly, many people die as martyrs for their religion, this is not exclusive to Christianity. Why do you need specific examples?
This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Why ..."
YES, EVOLUTION IS A PROVEN THEORY.... STILL JUST ATHEORY.
There is no historical evidence for his supernatural powers.
To us they are. You could keep asking what an atom really is but in the end an atom is the properties it displays, same with an electron or light or virtual particles. Their material existence is the effects they have on each other.
You are projecting. I have had several epiphanies over the last 10 years that have seriously altered my worldview. I kind of look forward to the next occurrence.
As mentioned by others, those are particularly bad examples of "immaterial".
To date all I have seen you do is build a straw man of others' worldviews.
You have just described your god as non-existent.
So now you *do* have material evidence. Where is it?
I am here to explore, but it would seem at this time you are expending your energies on the rationale and viewpoint of these straw-man "materialists" and the worldview that you think they have. The point of my question was to bring up your evasiveness in substantiating your own rationale and viewpoint.
So what is your evidence that it is a material existence? We know the effects of them, but what are they?
As far as I'm concerned they are what they do. An electron is a set of regular interactions in certain ways. If it doesn't do those things it's not an electron. I'm afraid that's the best I can do with the "but what is it really?" tyle questions. I would define material things as those which interact in measurable, observable and testable ways. For that definition what they really can remain unknown and in fact irrelevant.
So, we are just suppose to let you have a free ride? It just is because we say it is, is not a valid argument and most certainly not evidence in the way you are requiring of me.
Sure, but I would like to take this thread a bit further first.Really? Care to share?
I find your "throw stuff against the wall to see if it sticks" discussion technique to be... amusing.Gravity I don't think is a bad example. I said myself that wind was. Why are you laughing?
It is not accurate. It does not actually reflect anyone's worldview, you just think it does.How is it a straw man?
Where is "outside of the material world"?I don't see how?
Where is this evidence, and can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?Yes.
Can you provide an example where a "materialist" claimed that evidence was not necessary in support of their scientific theory?I don't think I am being evasive at all. I just don't think it is necessary for me to provide evidence when the same is not necessary for materialists.
Dunno. Tiny little gods?What are gravitons consist of?
I cannot see how one can form an opinion until they have been given access to other universes for comparison purposes, and develop some testable criteria. How about you?Are you saying that you don't agree that the universe looks designed?
Such as what? Do you accept stories of miracles and martyrdom as credible evidence for other religions?Such as?
Well I disagree.
No, it makes the material world testable. God is outside of that. We can use different "tests" that support His existence. We can site Jesus as God on Earth. It is in all of this that lends support to His existence. You can either believe or not believe but God has designed this universe in such a way as you can see His works and believe or you can choose to ignore them and choose not to. God doesn't force Himself on anyone. If there was absolute proof without a doubt of His existence then there would be no choice but to believe.
There is only one test, one that does cast out all doubt and that is truly seeking God. God revealing Himself to you. Then there is evidence. Not to the world but to you.
Gravity I don't think is a bad example. I said myself that wind was. Why are you laughing?
And what do these elementary elements consist of?
Are you denying the fact that the universe appears designed?
Should we deny the common ancestor?
That doesn't change the fact.
There is historical evidence for Jesus.
Why do you think wind is immaterial? Just because you can't see wind with your naked eyes, doesn't mean it isn't tangible.
ETA: I think I'll leave the double negative
There is no double negative in your sentence. There are three independent single negatives all doing their assigned jobs. A double negative is when two negatives modify the same word. In most languages, it intensifies the negation and is the equivalent of such phrases as "in no way," and "absolutely not." About 150 years ago, some English grammarians decided that, as in formal logic, every negative must negate separately, and so double negatives, in effect, canceled each other out, rendering the sentence as nonsense. American schoolteachers quickly followed suit. So for over 100 years, American schoolchildren have been given failing grades for bad grammar when there wasn't never nothing wrong with what they said.
So, we are just suppose to let you have a free ride? It just is because we say it is, is not a valid argument and most certainly not evidence in the way you are requiring of me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?