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.
It is a tough row to hoe though because if you wanted to introduce God scientifically you would have to come forward with some evidence to support your claim for a unfalsifiable idea.
And just how would you know any of this? I seriously doubt you are working in the sciences or acedemia, because what you describe isn't what I see there.if you work in the sciences or academia, and you not down with Darwinian Evolution (which is more accurately described as: the capability for Adaptation of an organism, as witnessed in the DNA which allows for variation and adaptation, btw, for all you Discovery Channel arm-chair 'scientists')
if you ain't down with the fairy-tale narrative espoused by the Ruling Elete, you can kiss your research grants, academic tenure and you career good-bye.
Political rant non-sequiter.This is how and why Al Gore gets a Nobel Prize for doing nothing more then financing and narrating a piece of tripe propaganda film,
and how & why President of the United States Corporation, Barrack Hussein Obummer, commander-in-thief, gets a Nobel Prize for doing literally, NOTHING.
Creationists don't bother looking at the "book of nature," because they are only looking at their bible. That's why they claim there are no transitionals, the earth is a few thousand years old, or claim the flood explains the geological record. You could never reach such conclusions by looking at nature.The book of Nature reveals all to those not removed from Nature or who have their minds addled by the State run, Corporate Owned Media Propaganda Machine.
All that believe in God believe in truth. "The way, the truth and the life".
Claiming ownership of truth and calling God a liar is simply stealing from God, for God is already all goodness, truth itself.
Trying to introduce God to the corporate body of scientists today is like trying to introduce Rosa Parks to the corporate body of the Ku Klux Klan.
Neither is Bill Gates.God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
Neither is Bill Gates.
Bill Gates is a falsifiable hypothesis?Yes he is, he just happens to be in evidence.
if you work in the sciences or academia, and you not down with Darwinian Evolution (which is more accurately described as: the capability for Adaptation of an organism, as witnessed in the DNA which allows for variation and adaptation, btw, for all you Discovery Channel arm-chair 'scientists')
if you ain't down with the fairy-tale narrative espoused by the Ruling Elete, you can kiss your research grants, academic tenure and you career good-bye.
How about the Arab phone you're using? is that a falsifiable hypothesis as well?Bill Gates is a falsifiable hypothesis?
Bill Gates Exists < is a falsifiable hypothesis.
How about the Arab phone you're using? is that a falsifiable hypothesis as well?
Since I have no idea what you're talking about I can't say.
You said God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
God is a Person.
I asked if Bill Gates (also a person) is a falsifiable hypothesis, and you played the Telephone Game (a.k.a., Arab Phone) by changing my point from a person (Bill Gates) to a phrase (Bill Gates exists) to make your point stand.
That, to me, is disingenuous.
I'll ask again though, Is Bill Gates a falsifiable hypothesis?
You would not call Him the 1st Person of the Godhead? or the 2nd Person? or the 3rd Person?... by the way I would not denigrate God by saying he is a person ...
You said God is not a falsifiable hypothesis.
God is a Person.
I asked if Bill Gates (also a person) is a falsifiable hypothesis, and you played the Telephone Game (a.k.a., Arab Phone) by changing my point from a person (Bill Gates) to a phrase (Bill Gates exists) to make your point stand.
That, to me, is disingenuous.
I'll ask again though, Is Bill Gates a falsifiable hypothesis?
You would not call Him the 1st Person of the Godhead? or the 2nd Person? or the 3rd Person?
Why is the existence of God not a testable hypothesis?You still don't seem to understand what a hypothesis is. Bill Gates is no a hypothesis, he is a person, by the way I would not denigrate God by saying he is a person but he is not a hypothesis either.
The existence of Bill Gates is a testable hypothesis.
The existence of God is not a testable hypothesis.
Do you see the difference?
Why is the existence of God not a testable hypothesis?
Trying to introduce God to the corporate body of scientists today is like trying to introduce Rosa Parks to the corporate body of the Ku Klux Klan.
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?