He Who Claims "God", Has A Moral Obligation To Produce Evidence.

More imaginary demands being issued by you? How do you KNOW that there can be no evidence?

 

Why is there a moral obligation to produce physical evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? What... because polscie says so?

 

It is still as simple as it was when I told you years ago, Incorporeal: Any evidence of the supernatural ties it to the natural world. Hence, there can never be evidence of anything supernatural. Evidence simply eliminates transcendence.

 

I told yo that Science has established a Creator of the Universe in accord with the Copenhagen Interpretation that founds the Quantum Physics it studies.
Why isn't that satisfactory to you???

 

You need examine what evil is.
Evil is something that hurts mankind.
Reality will do that unless mankind behaves in ways that adapt to Reality.
Otherwise, the evil of extinction is what is coming.

That is a bad evil, indeed, so the great savior came, Truth, to help save us if we will accept Truth as messiah.

 

So you deny literature was a form of communication because it often utilizes the Language Arts of symbolism, hyperbole, analogy, parables, metaphor, similes, etc???

 

Because it's false, just like every other pseudoscience idea you won't shut up about.

 

"God did it" may be a compelling answer for a number of reasons, but trying to balance it on top of something it has nothing to do with, such as science, is a downright stupid idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey GraspingforPeace. Long time no see. This site hasn't changed one bit, I see

 

Now that all depends on what is considered to be evidence. Now of course when scientists forbid the use of anything relating to religion as evidence, then naturally you would get a one sided view of things. Be serious dude.

 

It has nothing to do with what people allow or don't allow. It has to do with the inherent properties of the method of science.
Science cannot deal with the supernatural for the exact reason that I gave. So yes, of course science is one-sided if you want the supernatural to be the opposite side.

 

The 'inherent properties of the method of science' is based on assumptions. Assumptions that are accepted as true in spite of the fact that they have not been proven to be true.

Since you admit that science cannot deal with the 'supernatural', then there is no place for the insertion of scientific data in a discussion about the 'supernatural'.

Is this section of the forum dedicated to 'science'? No! It is dedicated to philosophy and religion. So, it would be appropriate to take the science discussions to the science section of the forum and quit attempting to apply science in an area which you admit science cannot deal with.

 

I believe it was you who introduced science in the discussion. I was talking about evidence.

But no matter the reason you're trying to ditch the connection now, I'm glad you were able to make it.

 

Well of course I introduced the term 'science' in our discussion. And Yes you were speaking about evidence. Now considering that you are not specifically speaking about 'scientific evidence', then any other type of evidence would be on par with scientific evidence. Thank you.

 

I wanted to add a God is an extraordinary claim. I walk around all the time and expect to see other people, a dog, cars, trees and so forth that is ordinary. I have yet to meet any god or goddess which if I met one on a street would be extraordinary. So really the proof of such a claim is up to the theist since its not ordinary.

If it matters many wonders of science is extraordinary and needed proving Evolution at the long view over ages, black holes, quasars and other galaxies all needed demonstrative study and bring inquiry to prove so your not asked as theists anything odd to prove an extraordinary claim.

 

Yeah, like a supposed worldwide flood that killed virtually all of my fellow humans and innocent animals! If he had the magic ability to "harden the Pharoah's heart" then of course he, if he was caring, would have changed the hearts of the supposed bad people on earth so he wouldn't have had to have them all die by a flood!

 

You have a point, but let's at least be CONSISTENT, and then also realize that the magic "resurrection" and magic "return" of Jesus is ALSO just metaphor or whatever, and not to be taken literally. So don't think that Jesus will give you eternal life.

 

It's unfortunate that you've never met Tom Brady.

 

?
You are way off again...
The Rules say man must adapt to the God of Reality or become extinct, so God has no work to do in that.

The great Extinction that killed off all mankind except Modern Homo sapiens was a good example for you, in that Neanderthal man did not adapt and he went Extinct.
That is the Reality we live inside.

 

Maybe.

It might have been a message that Truth does not just die and disappear.
It does "resurrect."

But then again, we KNOW that people have had Near Death Experiences, even held in the morgue for three days, but discovered to be still alive.

 

We only can see the sons-of-God.

They are people who have stood up for Truth in site of great forces against them.
They well may have died, as did Abraham Lincoln, Rev Martin Luther King, etc.

Reality is the God we must bow down before, and we see Reality only through the mediator of Truth, itself.

 

Reality is based upon the assumption that Truth can be sensed out by men, and then described as an image of Reality.

We use our senses from the very beginning to figure out what the world is like.
That Is the same thing modern science does today.
What is your problem with seeing this???

Reality is imaged to be Truth which we sense out and all agree upon.
That is what Science also does.

 

Which would amount to nothing more than a subjective rendering.. and not necessarily the same subjective rendering that might be offered by another person.

I have no problem comprehending what you are writing. At the same time, as stated above, the subjective renderings of one person is not necessarily the same rendering that another person might provide.

Reality is 'accepted' as truth only because of the willingness of the individual to accept it as truth. It still amounts to nothing more than a subjective image (a mental rendering) that is perceived through the senses. Subjectivity at its finest.

 

..That's what an assumption is, Incorporeal.

 

Why? By that standard, anyone can make up any claim (There's an invisible 10 headed spider controlling my actions) and practically demand belief on the premise that you have to prove a negative which is what you are asking. I would think that people of moderate intelligence would know this but I might be mistaken.

 

Yeppir and that is what the scientific method is founded upon. Assumptions. The first of those assumptions is that there is an 'objective reality'. Deal with it.