Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Science/Spirit

matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would like to address this topic once again or at least raise awareness to it. As I've stated over and over that science is incompatible with the spirit and the reason is obvious in the very definition of science itself, science is a system of understanding that is produced by our own efforts, study, research and observation of the physical. While it seems odd that theists are mocked and ridiculed for adhering to any religious belief system (so-called man-made), Atheists and those who put their trust in materialism and all their beliefs in what science can produce are as well adhering to a system which is "man-made", it is a study and conclusion based on "observable and peer reviewed" physical evidence of our physical world based on our current understanding and knowledge.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If a ghost were to slide a chair across the room before your very eyes you in fact have "observable evidence", BUT evidence of what? You have evidence that a change in the physical occurred, but there remains no evidence of the entity. So let's take it a step further and say you happen to have a video camera at hand and recorded the image, so okay now you possess your own experience as well as evidence to suggest what you observed is accurate, BUT, what is it you observed lol? You saw the change but not the source and God is the same way, He could touch you on the nose but there would be no way to trace what you felt and falsify or prove that God touched you on the nose (except to yourself) with a scientific method, because God is a Spirit and is not observable with our physical eyes unless we have a spiritual vision or our spiritual senses are active.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:18:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I would like to address this topic once again or at least raise awareness to it. As I've stated over and over that science is incompatible with the spirit and the reason is obvious in the very definition of science itself, science is a system of understanding that is produced by our own efforts, study, research and observation of the physical. While it seems odd that theists are mocked and ridiculed for adhering to any religious belief system (so-called man-made), Atheists and those who put their trust in materialism and all their beliefs in what science can produce are as well adhering to a system which is "man-made", it is a study and conclusion based on "observable and peer reviewed" physical evidence of our physical world based on our current understanding and knowledge.

"Atheists use man-made science". We acknowledge science is man-made just like religion. You're trying to compare metaphysical (spirit) to things which are man-made (science), and claim they are on different magisterium. In actuality you are overlooking the fact the "spirit" relies on a man-made understanding, and since there is no objective evidence to support such things they can be dismissed by science.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If science cannot observe objective evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth by God, then the same applies to theists. So, to accept creation as you do, one must have extremely weak standards of evidence.

If a ghost were to slide a chair across the room before your very eyes you in fact have "observable evidence", BUT evidence of what? You have evidence that a change in the physical occurred, but there remains no evidence of the entity. So let's take it a step further and say you happen to have a video camera at hand and recorded the image, so okay now you possess your own experience as well as evidence to suggest what you observed is accurate, BUT, what is it you observed lol? You saw the change but not the source and God is the same way, He could touch you on the nose but there would be no way to trace what you felt and falsify or prove that God touched you on the nose (except to yourself) with a scientific method, because God is a Spirit and is not observable with our physical eyes unless we have a spiritual vision or our spiritual senses are active.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

...equating the evidence for belief in your god to the same evidence we have for fairies and gremlins is not intellectually dishonest. In fact, embracing that fact is intellectually honest.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 11:42:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The very reason why you explain one can"t physically prove an act of God, is what the opposition knows already and is glade to let you think that is your requirement to prove, but its not your claim, it"s your faith or belief and trust of what God claims or says. All claims that are of God, are God"s claims correct? Then who has the power to prove it? Man doesn"t have the power to prove it. I would suspect one of the main reasons is, God knows what is in the hearts of men. God speaks to the humble heart, not the proud and arrogant. Peter didn"t prove the Lord God is, the Lord proved that He was with Peter (people diving into his shadow to be healed), and that Peter should be believed.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 12:22:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Science is incompatible with spirit because science deals with reality. Nothing about the concept of spirit is at all consistent with reality. That's why no one - even after proclaiming "spiritual knowledge" and/or "spiritual experience" can offer anything except their uncontrolled emotional state.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 12:41:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word.

For what reason would God have a mouth? For that matter, how does a being with no physical body, have a mouth? You're speaking gibberish, not because it makes sense, but because you have accepted it without critical examination, and spew it onto others. And you become offended when they apply the critical examination you have failed to apply.

And you've COMPLETELY misrepresented the argument. It's not that if a creator created us, there would remain objective evidence of that creator. I've not heard anyone make that claim. So listen closely, Matt; if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence. And since you seem to have difficulty comprehending that principle, I'll give you an example. Suppose there is a tiny dust speck on your desk. It's so small you can barely see it, even with a magnifying glass. I want you to imagine taking a sharp pin, and using it to move that dust speck, only a tiny fraction of the width of the dust speck itself.

Now... is there physical evidence that you moved the dust speck? If I had taken a macro photo of the dust speck before you moved it, and another one afterward, would we notice the difference? The dust speck sits in a slightly altered orientation. That new orientation serves as physical evidence that the speck was moved. Theists don't run around claiming that God nudges dust specks. They claim he keeps rubble from collapsing buildings from falling on babies. They claim he protects them and their vehicles from colliding with other vehicles. They claim he stops planets from rotating and then restarts the rotation. Such feats alter the physical and you can't "alter the physical" without a "physical alteration". A "physical alteration" is "physical evidence of a physical alteration". If you move something, it resides in a new orientation. If you turn it over, it's orientation is flipped 180-degrees. If you strip an electron from a hydrogen atom, you end up with a hydrogen nuclei. There has been a detectable physical change. You can't affect physical change, without producing physical evidence of the change.

Do you understand that now?

If you do, please explain how God prevents cars from colliding, protects babies from falling debris, reduces one's craving for chemicals for which they've formed a dependency, etc., without leaving any physical evidence. Tell me how God grants prayers, without leaving any physical evidence whatsoever... because none has EVER been found. There is no "missing force" in the universe, consistent with benevolence. Altering the physical requires energy. That's as basic as reality itself. And yet, energy is part of the physical realm, so God isn't energy - that would make him a physical being. It would mean he would be clearly detectable in an objective, repeatable, testable manner.

God is as illusive as a fairy, because he comes from the same imaginary source as fairies, Leprechauns, etc. (Old argument or not, it's accurate.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 3:29:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 12:41:32 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

For what reason would God have a mouth? For that matter, how does a being with no physical body, have a mouth? You're speaking gibberish, not because it makes sense, but because you have accepted it without critical examination, and spew it onto others. And you become offended when they apply the critical examination you have failed to apply.

And you've COMPLETELY misrepresented the argument. It's not that if a creator created us, there would remain objective evidence of that creator. I've not heard anyone make that claim. So listen closely, Matt; if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence.

But then there is also the view that since the Creator and Judge is a Spirit the Voice of God maybe only be heard in Spirit or maybe better said in the heart. Which doesn"t have to be emotions. But in the case of Moses, the Voice of God was heard by thousands. At least the Israelites claim they hear and are supposed to hear and obey the Voice of the Lord their God. At the minimum those who are recognized as prophets of the Lord.

Also if there is such a thing as spirit then it"s a part of reality isn"t it? Spirit and emotions are not of the same. Actors manipulate their emotions all the time to make large quantities of money. Not the same as something like God is a Spirit.

And incase you didn"t notice, all the order one sees in the universe including the universe and that there is life therein is supposed to be the physical evidence in "if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 3:53:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 3:29:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/17/2014 12:41:32 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

For what reason would God have a mouth? For that matter, how does a being with no physical body, have a mouth? You're speaking gibberish, not because it makes sense, but because you have accepted it without critical examination, and spew it onto others. And you become offended when they apply the critical examination you have failed to apply.

And you've COMPLETELY misrepresented the argument. It's not that if a creator created us, there would remain objective evidence of that creator. I've not heard anyone make that claim. So listen closely, Matt; if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence.


But then there is also the view that since the Creator and Judge is a Spirit the Voice of God maybe only be heard in Spirit or maybe better said in the heart. Which doesn"t have to be emotions.
And yet, that is what the figurative "heart" references - emotions. The literal heart is a muscle. Take your pick.

But in the case of Moses, the Voice of God was heard by thousands.
And in the case of Spiderman comics, Spiderman was seen by thousands. Claims of "thousands" are easy to write. The world "millions" is easier still.

At least the Israelites claim they hear and are supposed to hear and obey the Voice of the Lord their God. At the minimum those who are recognized as prophets of the Lord.
Recognized by whom? I don't recognize any of them as prophets of the Lord, nor does any of science.

Also if there is such a thing as spirit then it"s a part of reality isn"t it?
And if there is no such thing as spirit, then it's not part of reality. And that's where all of the evidence leads.

Spirit and emotions are not of the same. Actors manipulate their emotions all the time to make large quantities of money. Not the same as something like God is a Spirit.
Correct. Emotions are real, but can be faked. Spirits are not real, but people fake the "spiritual" regularly.

And incase you didn"t notice, all the order one sees in the universe including the universe and that there is life therein is supposed to be the physical evidence in "if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence."
The order in the universe is evidence for the order in the universe. It's fully explained AND DEMONSTRATED through Chaos Theory, which is a natural mechanism, not a "spiritual" anything. Is the formation of an ice crystal, evidence of God?

In case YOU didn't notice, natural mechanisms account for everything which can be shown to be real. You're still clinging to bronze-age ignorance concerning life and order as your evidence for God, when it is demonstrated to be nothing of the sort. It's purely physical, demonstrable and explainable.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 4:29:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 12:41:32 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word.

For what reason would God have a mouth? For that matter, how does a being with no physical body, have a mouth? You're speaking gibberish, not because it makes sense, but because you have accepted it without critical examination, and spew it onto others. And you become offended when they apply the critical examination you have failed to apply.

For what reason would God not have a mouth? Spiritual beings have a form just like we do, it is a spiritual body as opposed to a physical body that decays, the spirit does not decay. We are created in the "image" of God, He is not a blob or a floating mind lol, He is an Entity, a Being with a form.

And you've COMPLETELY misrepresented the argument. It's not that if a creator created us, there would remain objective evidence of that creator. I've not heard anyone make that claim. So listen closely, Matt; if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence. And since you seem to have difficulty comprehending that principle, I'll give you an example. Suppose there is a tiny dust speck on your desk. It's so small you can barely see it, even with a magnifying glass. I want you to imagine taking a sharp pin, and using it to move that dust speck, only a tiny fraction of the width of the dust speck itself.

I've already addressed that with the ghost illustration, I'm not saying that there is no alteration of the physical, ACTUALLY I said the opposite if you did in fact read it. My point was that an alteration of the physical is simply that, it traces no evidence to the hand of God or any particular entity that science could confirm because God has no physical base to examine.

So again using your own example, if God moved a "speck of dust" how would science prove that God did it?

Now... is there physical evidence that you moved the dust speck? If I had taken a macro photo of the dust speck before you moved it, and another one afterward, would we notice the difference? The dust speck sits in a slightly altered orientation. That new orientation serves as physical evidence that the speck was moved. Theists don't run around claiming that God nudges dust specks. They claim he keeps rubble from collapsing buildings from falling on babies. They claim he protects them and their vehicles from colliding with other vehicles. They claim he stops planets from rotating and then restarts the rotation. Such feats alter the physical and you can't "alter the physical" without a "physical alteration". A "physical alteration" is "physical evidence of a physical alteration". If you move something, it resides in a new orientation. If you turn it over, it's orientation is flipped 180-degrees. If you strip an electron from a hydrogen atom, you end up with a hydrogen nuclei. There has been a detectable physical change. You can't affect physical change, without producing physical evidence of the change.

Again you miss the point, I never said the physical was not altered, I said the opposite, my point being is that how can we trace any claim to GOD HIMSELF?? We cannot, if someone told you that God saved their marriage how could that be peer reviewed and concluded that God in fact did it, or someone told you God delivered them from an addiction how could science prove that? And actually how could science verify ANY of the things you mentioned below and trace that to God? If someone told you they had a spiritual experience or anything of that nature how could science verify that? All God claims are dismissed by the very simple fact that there is nothing to "observe" but the claim, but it is always dismissed and you should know that, yet you're arguing the point.
God does not perform for statistics and science projects.

Do you understand that now?

Do you?

If you do, please explain how God prevents cars from colliding, protects babies from falling debris, reduces one's craving for chemicals for which they've formed a dependency, etc., without leaving any physical evidence. Tell me how God grants prayers, without leaving any physical evidence whatsoever... because none has EVER been found. There is no "missing force" in the universe, consistent with benevolence. Altering the physical requires energy. That's as basic as reality itself. And yet, energy is part of the physical realm, so God isn't energy - that would make him a physical being. It would mean he would be clearly detectable in an objective, repeatable, testable manner.

See above, and I don't know what your point is on the last part.


God is as illusive as a fairy, because he comes from the same imaginary source as fairies, Leprechauns, etc. (Old argument or not, it's accurate.)

Intellectual dishonesty...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 4:31:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 3:53:36 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 3:29:07 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/17/2014 12:41:32 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

For what reason would God have a mouth? For that matter, how does a being with no physical body, have a mouth? You're speaking gibberish, not because it makes sense, but because you have accepted it without critical examination, and spew it onto others. And you become offended when they apply the critical examination you have failed to apply.

And you've COMPLETELY misrepresented the argument. It's not that if a creator created us, there would remain objective evidence of that creator. I've not heard anyone make that claim. So listen closely, Matt; if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence.


But then there is also the view that since the Creator and Judge is a Spirit the Voice of God maybe only be heard in Spirit or maybe better said in the heart. Which doesn"t have to be emotions.
And yet, that is what the figurative "heart" references - emotions. The literal heart is a muscle. Take your pick.

But in the case of Moses, the Voice of God was heard by thousands.
And in the case of Spiderman comics, Spiderman was seen by thousands. Claims of "thousands" are easy to write. The world "millions" is easier still.

At least the Israelites claim they hear and are supposed to hear and obey the Voice of the Lord their God. At the minimum those who are recognized as prophets of the Lord.
Recognized by whom? I don't recognize any of them as prophets of the Lord, nor does any of science.


Also if there is such a thing as spirit then it"s a part of reality isn"t it?
And if there is no such thing as spirit, then it's not part of reality. And that's where all of the evidence leads.

Spirit and emotions are not of the same. Actors manipulate their emotions all the time to make large quantities of money. Not the same as something like God is a Spirit.
Correct. Emotions are real, but can be faked. Spirits are not real, but people fake the "spiritual" regularly.

And incase you didn"t notice, all the order one sees in the universe including the universe and that there is life therein is supposed to be the physical evidence in "if God AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL, it would leave physical evidence."
The order in the universe is evidence for the order in the universe. It's fully explained AND DEMONSTRATED through Chaos Theory, which is a natural mechanism, not a "spiritual" anything. Is the formation of an ice crystal, evidence of God?

In case YOU didn't notice, natural mechanisms account for everything which can be shown to be real. You're still clinging to bronze-age ignorance concerning life and order as your evidence for God, when it is demonstrated to be nothing of the sort. It's purely physical, demonstrable and explainable.

Na, anyone who has been to a football game or similar occasion has witnessed spirit. The same spirit just about takes over the whole stadium, and yes there are many emotions expressed from the people there. Therefore spirit is a part of reality.

What are you naive enough to think that if someone can fake or pretend something is, then it isn"t at all? You just said emotions exist, but some can fake it.

Someone born yesterday buy that explained stuff, you should be old enough to know by now that evidence is merely interpreted (explained).

Science has its place, but if you want to adopt it as your system of belief seems shaky. Every theory that is believed in the science community changes when someone else comes up with another that seems better. For example, science, even the big guns of the day, was totally convinced that the universe was forever, until the "Big Bang" so if you where a believer of science then, you would have believed a lie. (Something that wasn"t true). Even most of the science organizations will tell you that they have no intention of being a system of belief. But many adopt it as one.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2014 4:42:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 11:18:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I would like to address this topic once again or at least raise awareness to it. As I've stated over and over that science is incompatible with the spirit and the reason is obvious in the very definition of science itself, science is a system of understanding that is produced by our own efforts, study, research and observation of the physical. While it seems odd that theists are mocked and ridiculed for adhering to any religious belief system (so-called man-made), Atheists and those who put their trust in materialism and all their beliefs in what science can produce are as well adhering to a system which is "man-made", it is a study and conclusion based on "observable and peer reviewed" physical evidence of our physical world based on our current understanding and knowledge.

"Atheists use man-made science". We acknowledge science is man-made just like religion. You're trying to compare metaphysical (spirit) to things which are man-made (science), and claim they are on different magisterium. In actuality you are overlooking the fact the "spirit" relies on a man-made understanding, and since there is no objective evidence to support such things they can be dismissed by science.

How does the spirit rely on man-made understanding? That's completely the opposite lol.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If science cannot observe objective evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth by God, then the same applies to theists. So, to accept creation as you do, one must have extremely weak standards of evidence.

Science cannot observe, I didn't say we as individuals have nothing to observe. If I had no evidence of God in my life I wouldn't be a Christian lol. But I don't use those elements in debate because they are useless as they supply no observable evidence for anyone other than myself, and so they are dismissed. Actually I find the proposition against a Creator weak.

If a ghost were to slide a chair across the room before your very eyes you in fact have "observable evidence", BUT evidence of what? You have evidence that a change in the physical occurred, but there remains no evidence of the entity. So let's take it a step further and say you happen to have a video camera at hand and recorded the image, so okay now you possess your own experience as well as evidence to suggest what you observed is accurate, BUT, what is it you observed lol? You saw the change but not the source and God is the same way, He could touch you on the nose but there would be no way to trace what you felt and falsify or prove that God touched you on the nose (except to yourself) with a scientific method, because God is a Spirit and is not observable with our physical eyes unless we have a spiritual vision or our spiritual senses are active.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

...equating the evidence for belief in your god to the same evidence we have for fairies and gremlins is not intellectually dishonest. In fact, embracing that fact is intellectually honest.

LOL! oh okay okay.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 1:27:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 4:42:09 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:18:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I would like to address this topic once again or at least raise awareness to it. As I've stated over and over that science is incompatible with the spirit and the reason is obvious in the very definition of science itself, science is a system of understanding that is produced by our own efforts, study, research and observation of the physical. While it seems odd that theists are mocked and ridiculed for adhering to any religious belief system (so-called man-made), Atheists and those who put their trust in materialism and all their beliefs in what science can produce are as well adhering to a system which is "man-made", it is a study and conclusion based on "observable and peer reviewed" physical evidence of our physical world based on our current understanding and knowledge.

"Atheists use man-made science". We acknowledge science is man-made just like religion. You're trying to compare metaphysical (spirit) to things which are man-made (science), and claim they are on different magisterium. In actuality you are overlooking the fact the "spirit" relies on a man-made understanding, and since there is no objective evidence to support such things they can be dismissed by science.

How does the spirit rely on man-made understanding? That's completely the opposite lol.

There is no objective evidence for "spirit" of any kind. Spirit is just another way of describing some mysterious vague metaphysical concept that means something different to everyone. The spirit (as you use it) is indistinguishable from imagination.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If science cannot observe objective evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth by God, then the same applies to theists. So, to accept creation as you do, one must have extremely weak standards of evidence.

Science cannot observe, I didn't say we as individuals have nothing to observe. If I had no evidence of God in my life I wouldn't be a Christian lol. But I don't use those elements in debate because they are useless as they supply no observable evidence for anyone other than myself, and so they are dismissed. Actually I find the proposition against a Creator weak.

I never said you had no evidence, but the evidence you have is subjective. I'm sure some atheists would love to show you the strength of their arguments against a creator, but I would simply point out if God cannot be proven,then he cannot be disproven, either. That would be like me asking you to disprove vampires or werewolves. You would expect me to prove they exist before you go the trouble.

If a ghost were to slide a chair across the room before your very eyes you in fact have "observable evidence", BUT evidence of what? You have evidence that a change in the physical occurred, but there remains no evidence of the entity. So let's take it a step further and say you happen to have a video camera at hand and recorded the image, so okay now you possess your own experience as well as evidence to suggest what you observed is accurate, BUT, what is it you observed lol? You saw the change but not the source and God is the same way, He could touch you on the nose but there would be no way to trace what you felt and falsify or prove that God touched you on the nose (except to yourself) with a scientific method, because God is a Spirit and is not observable with our physical eyes unless we have a spiritual vision or our spiritual senses are active.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

...equating the evidence for belief in your god to the same evidence we have for fairies and gremlins is not intellectually dishonest. In fact, embracing that fact is intellectually honest.

LOL! oh okay okay.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 5:47:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 1:27:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 4:42:09 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:18:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

"Atheists use man-made science". We acknowledge science is man-made just like religion. You're trying to compare metaphysical (spirit) to things which are man-made (science), and claim they are on different magisterium. In actuality you are overlooking the fact the "spirit" relies on a man-made understanding, and since there is no objective evidence to support such things they can be dismissed by science.

How does the spirit rely on man-made understanding? That's completely the opposite lol.

There is no objective evidence for "spirit" of any kind. Spirit is just another way of describing some mysterious vague metaphysical concept that means something different to everyone. The spirit (as you use it) is indistinguishable from imagination.

No that is not true, there is no "scientific" evidence of any kind which was the point of my post, we cannot measure things of the "spirit" by physical means, what I mean in other words is there is no way to analyse the reality of the spiritual in a lab or peer reviewed science. Actually the Bible is very specific about the spirit, not vague at all IMO.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If science cannot observe objective evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth by God, then the same applies to theists. So, to accept creation as you do, one must have extremely weak standards of evidence.

Science cannot observe, I didn't say we as individuals have nothing to observe. If I had no evidence of God in my life I wouldn't be a Christian lol. But I don't use those elements in debate because they are useless as they supply no observable evidence for anyone other than myself, and so they are dismissed. Actually I find the proposition against a Creator weak.

I never said you had no evidence, but the evidence you have is subjective. I'm sure some atheists would love to show you the strength of their arguments against a creator, but I would simply point out if God cannot be proven,then he cannot be disproven, either. That would be like me asking you to disprove vampires or werewolves. You would expect me to prove they exist before you go the trouble.

Yes it is subjective, and the point of this post was to explain why.
I've pretty much have read all that Atheists have to offer over the years, I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the way and both groups are proud.

Neither myself or you are discussing our belief in werewolves or vampires :) so why would you reduce what I believe in to that? I understand your point don't get me wrong but honestly it's an insult to my intelligence. Would you spend this much time in a forum debating and discussing the existence of vampires?

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

...equating the evidence for belief in your god to the same evidence we have for fairies and gremlins is not intellectually dishonest. In fact, embracing that fact is intellectually honest.

LOL! oh okay okay.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:19:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 5:47:51 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:27:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 4:42:09 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:18:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

"Atheists use man-made science". We acknowledge science is man-made just like religion. You're trying to compare metaphysical (spirit) to things which are man-made (science), and claim they are on different magisterium. In actuality you are overlooking the fact the "spirit" relies on a man-made understanding, and since there is no objective evidence to support such things they can be dismissed by science.

How does the spirit rely on man-made understanding? That's completely the opposite lol.

There is no objective evidence for "spirit" of any kind. Spirit is just another way of describing some mysterious vague metaphysical concept that means something different to everyone. The spirit (as you use it) is indistinguishable from imagination.

No that is not true, there is no "scientific" evidence of any kind which was the point of my post, we cannot measure things of the "spirit" by physical means, what I mean in other words is there is no way to analyse the reality of the spiritual in a lab or peer reviewed science. Actually the Bible is very specific about the spirit, not vague at all IMO.

The Bible is not valid objective evidence of "spirit".

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If science cannot observe objective evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth by God, then the same applies to theists. So, to accept creation as you do, one must have extremely weak standards of evidence.

Science cannot observe, I didn't say we as individuals have nothing to observe. If I had no evidence of God in my life I wouldn't be a Christian lol. But I don't use those elements in debate because they are useless as they supply no observable evidence for anyone other than myself, and so they are dismissed. Actually I find the proposition against a Creator weak.

I never said you had no evidence, but the evidence you have is subjective. I'm sure some atheists would love to show you the strength of their arguments against a creator, but I would simply point out if God cannot be proven,then he cannot be disproven, either. That would be like me asking you to disprove vampires or werewolves. You would expect me to prove they exist before you go the trouble.

Yes it is subjective, and the point of this post was to explain why.
I've pretty much have read all that Atheists have to offer over the years, I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the way and both groups are proud.

Do you think atheists don't know belief in a god is subjective? Belief in god is an emotional experience based on weak evidence especially considering the grand claims.

Neither myself or you are discussing our belief in werewolves or vampires :) so why would you reduce what I believe in to that? I understand your point don't get me wrong but honestly it's an insult to my intelligence. Would you spend this much time in a forum debating and discussing the existence of vampires?

No, of course not, but people who believe in vampires don't try to pass legislation related to vampires. People who believe in vampires don't attempt to change the curriculum of public schools to favor vampires creation which are unsupported by the evidence. It is not necessary to be some sort of vampire believer to have a chance of being elected to political office. Basically, theists affect politics and society. You seem to think atheists should leave theists alone because "their not hurting you". If that was your point, you are sadly mistaken. Theists are capable of starting wars based on an apocalyptic worldview. Theists do pass legislation based on their unsupportable beliefs. Theists do attempt to change curriculum to teach ID in science classrooms in spite of it not being science in the least. Also, not being a theist greatly reduces an individual's chances to political office.

Whether it insults your intelligence or not I have good reason to question the weak evidence for your god, and the vampire analogy is completely relevant.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

...equating the evidence for belief in your god to the same evidence we have for fairies and gremlins is not intellectually dishonest. In fact, embracing that fact is intellectually honest.

LOL! oh okay okay.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 11:44:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:19:37 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:47:51 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:27:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 4:42:09 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:18:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

"Atheists use man-made science". We acknowledge science is man-made just like religion. You're trying to compare metaphysical (spirit) to things which are man-made (science), and claim they are on different magisterium. In actuality you are overlooking the fact the "spirit" relies on a man-made understanding, and since there is no objective evidence to support such things they can be dismissed by science.

How does the spirit rely on man-made understanding? That's completely the opposite lol.

There is no objective evidence for "spirit" of any kind. Spirit is just another way of describing some mysterious vague metaphysical concept that means something different to everyone. The spirit (as you use it) is indistinguishable from imagination.

No that is not true, there is no "scientific" evidence of any kind which was the point of my post, we cannot measure things of the "spirit" by physical means, what I mean in other words is there is no way to analyse the reality of the spiritual in a lab or peer reviewed science. Actually the Bible is very specific about the spirit, not vague at all IMO.

The Bible is not valid objective evidence of "spirit".

Never said it was, but do you want to know what we believe or not? What's the point in conversing if I'm restricted by "objective evidence" lol I might as well never come here.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If science cannot observe objective evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth by God, then the same applies to theists. So, to accept creation as you do, one must have extremely weak standards of evidence.

Science cannot observe, I didn't say we as individuals have nothing to observe. If I had no evidence of God in my life I wouldn't be a Christian lol. But I don't use those elements in debate because they are useless as they supply no observable evidence for anyone other than myself, and so they are dismissed. Actually I find the proposition against a Creator weak.

I never said you had no evidence, but the evidence you have is subjective. I'm sure some atheists would love to show you the strength of their arguments against a creator, but I would simply point out if God cannot be proven,then he cannot be disproven, either. That would be like me asking you to disprove vampires or werewolves. You would expect me to prove they exist before you go the trouble.

Yes it is subjective, and the point of this post was to explain why.
I've pretty much have read all that Atheists have to offer over the years, I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the way and both groups are proud.

Do you think atheists don't know belief in a god is subjective? Belief in god is an emotional experience based on weak evidence especially considering the grand claims.

That sounds like an opinion. As a theist I will tell you what my beliefs in God are sir.

Neither myself or you are discussing our belief in werewolves or vampires :) so why would you reduce what I believe in to that? I understand your point don't get me wrong but honestly it's an insult to my intelligence. Would you spend this much time in a forum debating and discussing the existence of vampires?

No, of course not, but people who believe in vampires don't try to pass legislation related to vampires. People who believe in vampires don't attempt to change the curriculum of public schools to favor vampires creation which are unsupported by the evidence. It is not necessary to be some sort of vampire believer to have a chance of being elected to political office. Basically, theists affect politics and society. You seem to think atheists should leave theists alone because "their not hurting you". If that was your point, you are sadly mistaken. Theists are capable of starting wars based on an apocalyptic worldview. Theists do pass legislation based on their unsupportable beliefs. Theists do attempt to change curriculum to teach ID in science classrooms in spite of it not being science in the least. Also, not being a theist greatly reduces an individual's chances to political office.

I'm not a political figure and this is irrelevant to our discussion and I never said you should leave me alone, don't really know what this rant was for.

Whether it insults your intelligence or not I have good reason to question the weak evidence for your god, and the vampire analogy is completely relevant.

What ever you wish.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

...equating the evidence for belief in your god to the same evidence we have for fairies and gremlins is not intellectually dishonest. In fact, embracing that fact is intellectually honest.

LOL! oh okay okay.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2014 12:40:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/18/2014 11:44:51 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 11:19:37 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/18/2014 5:47:51 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/18/2014 1:27:14 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 4:42:09 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/17/2014 11:18:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:

"Atheists use man-made science". We acknowledge science is man-made just like religion. You're trying to compare metaphysical (spirit) to things which are man-made (science), and claim they are on different magisterium. In actuality you are overlooking the fact the "spirit" relies on a man-made understanding, and since there is no objective evidence to support such things they can be dismissed by science.

How does the spirit rely on man-made understanding? That's completely the opposite lol.

There is no objective evidence for "spirit" of any kind. Spirit is just another way of describing some mysterious vague metaphysical concept that means something different to everyone. The spirit (as you use it) is indistinguishable from imagination.

No that is not true, there is no "scientific" evidence of any kind which was the point of my post, we cannot measure things of the "spirit" by physical means, what I mean in other words is there is no way to analyse the reality of the spiritual in a lab or peer reviewed science. Actually the Bible is very specific about the spirit, not vague at all IMO.

The Bible is not valid objective evidence of "spirit".

Never said it was, but do you want to know what we believe or not? What's the point in conversing if I'm restricted by "objective evidence" lol I might as well never come here.

As a former theist, I understand where you are coming from. I know the default beliefs by heart.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If science cannot observe objective evidence for the creation of the heavens and earth by God, then the same applies to theists. So, to accept creation as you do, one must have extremely weak standards of evidence.

Science cannot observe, I didn't say we as individuals have nothing to observe. If I had no evidence of God in my life I wouldn't be a Christian lol. But I don't use those elements in debate because they are useless as they supply no observable evidence for anyone other than myself, and so they are dismissed. Actually I find the proposition against a Creator weak.

I never said you had no evidence, but the evidence you have is subjective. I'm sure some atheists would love to show you the strength of their arguments against a creator, but I would simply point out if God cannot be proven,then he cannot be disproven, either. That would be like me asking you to disprove vampires or werewolves. You would expect me to prove they exist before you go the trouble.

Yes it is subjective, and the point of this post was to explain why.
I've pretty much have read all that Atheists have to offer over the years, I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding in the way and both groups are proud.

Do you think atheists don't know belief in a god is subjective? Belief in god is an emotional experience based on weak evidence especially considering the grand claims.

That sounds like an opinion. As a theist I will tell you what my beliefs in God are sir.

Sure, it is an opinion. However, if you're attempting to state your opinion is somehow more valid than mine because the invisible deity which is not supported in the same manner in which you support other things in your life gives you some sort of authority, then I feel obliged to point out this silliness.

Neither myself or you are discussing our belief in werewolves or vampires :) so why would you reduce what I believe in to that? I understand your point don't get me wrong but honestly it's an insult to my intelligence. Would you spend this much time in a forum debating and discussing the existence of vampires?

No, of course not, but people who believe in vampires don't try to pass legislation related to vampires. People who believe in vampires don't attempt to change the curriculum of public schools to favor vampires creation which are unsupported by the evidence. It is not necessary to be some sort of vampire believer to have a chance of being elected to political office. Basically, theists affect politics and society. You seem to think atheists should leave theists alone because "their not hurting you". If that was your point, you are sadly mistaken. Theists are capable of starting wars based on an apocalyptic worldview. Theists do pass legislation based on their unsupportable beliefs. Theists do attempt to change curriculum to teach ID in science classrooms in spite of it not being science in the least. Also, not being a theist greatly reduces an individual's chances to political office.

I'm not a political figure and this is irrelevant to our discussion and I never said you should leave me alone, don't really know what this rant was for.

Politicians are supported and shaped by theistic beliefs such as yours (weakly supported beliefs in a deity). I believe it is quite relevant, but I concede it is a bit off topic.

Whether it insults your intelligence or not I have good reason to question the weak evidence for your god, and the vampire analogy is completely relevant.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 11:32:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I would like to address this topic once again or at least raise awareness to it. As I've stated over and over that science is incompatible with the spirit and the reason is obvious in the very definition of science itself, science is a system of understanding that is produced by our own efforts, study, research and observation of the physical. While it seems odd that theists are mocked and ridiculed for adhering to any religious belief system (so-called man-made), Atheists and those who put their trust in materialism and all their beliefs in what science can produce are as well adhering to a system which is "man-made", it is a study and conclusion based on "observable and peer reviewed" physical evidence of our physical world based on our current understanding and knowledge.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If a ghost were to slide a chair across the room before your very eyes you in fact have "observable evidence", BUT evidence of what? You have evidence that a change in the physical occurred, but there remains no evidence of the entity. So let's take it a step further and say you happen to have a video camera at hand and recorded the image, so okay now you possess your own experience as well as evidence to suggest what you observed is accurate, BUT, what is it you observed lol? You saw the change but not the source and God is the same way, He could touch you on the nose but there would be no way to trace what you felt and falsify or prove that God touched you on the nose (except to yourself) with a scientific method, because God is a Spirit and is not observable with our physical eyes unless we have a spiritual vision or our spiritual senses are active.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

It's about time someone other than myself has realized this grand truth aha
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 4:33:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 11:32:05 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I would like to address this topic once again or at least raise awareness to it. As I've stated over and over that science is incompatible with the spirit and the reason is obvious in the very definition of science itself, science is a system of understanding that is produced by our own efforts, study, research and observation of the physical. While it seems odd that theists are mocked and ridiculed for adhering to any religious belief system (so-called man-made), Atheists and those who put their trust in materialism and all their beliefs in what science can produce are as well adhering to a system which is "man-made", it is a study and conclusion based on "observable and peer reviewed" physical evidence of our physical world based on our current understanding and knowledge.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If a ghost were to slide a chair across the room before your very eyes you in fact have "observable evidence", BUT evidence of what? You have evidence that a change in the physical occurred, but there remains no evidence of the entity. So let's take it a step further and say you happen to have a video camera at hand and recorded the image, so okay now you possess your own experience as well as evidence to suggest what you observed is accurate, BUT, what is it you observed lol? You saw the change but not the source and God is the same way, He could touch you on the nose but there would be no way to trace what you felt and falsify or prove that God touched you on the nose (except to yourself) with a scientific method, because God is a Spirit and is not observable with our physical eyes unless we have a spiritual vision or our spiritual senses are active.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

It's about time someone other than myself has realized this grand truth aha

Yes my brotha! the spirit is grand, there is much to learn here and after :)
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2014 4:37:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/19/2014 4:33:08 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 8/19/2014 11:32:05 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 8/17/2014 10:03:14 AM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
I would like to address this topic once again or at least raise awareness to it. As I've stated over and over that science is incompatible with the spirit and the reason is obvious in the very definition of science itself, science is a system of understanding that is produced by our own efforts, study, research and observation of the physical. While it seems odd that theists are mocked and ridiculed for adhering to any religious belief system (so-called man-made), Atheists and those who put their trust in materialism and all their beliefs in what science can produce are as well adhering to a system which is "man-made", it is a study and conclusion based on "observable and peer reviewed" physical evidence of our physical world based on our current understanding and knowledge.

One of the "arguments" I've read is that if a Creator created our physical existence then there would remain objective evidence of that Creator..... this is laughable to me but nevertheless I like to hear all sides of every argument. The reason I find this so amusing is that it should be so blatantly obvious to the point of it being not worth mentioning but It's apparently difficult for some.
Everyone in a religious debate forum should already know two simple things, one God is a Spirit and two God moved physical matter and material with the sounds of His mouth, His spoken word. That means that our world came into formation by the command of the voice of God by moving the physical elements into the place of His desire.
There is absolutely no way that science could observe that God formed the physical world, it is not possible and the reasons are simple, firstly science has to be able to observe the physical changes and formations (which they have to a degree but I'm talking about the moment they changed) and secondly and most important is they need to trace those physical demonstrations to the hand of God and that's where the problem begins, even if science were to observe a physical change in the environment no knowledge is gained about the source and that's why you can find so many claims about God without verifiable scientific proof, I'll give a couple simple minded examples..

If a ghost were to slide a chair across the room before your very eyes you in fact have "observable evidence", BUT evidence of what? You have evidence that a change in the physical occurred, but there remains no evidence of the entity. So let's take it a step further and say you happen to have a video camera at hand and recorded the image, so okay now you possess your own experience as well as evidence to suggest what you observed is accurate, BUT, what is it you observed lol? You saw the change but not the source and God is the same way, He could touch you on the nose but there would be no way to trace what you felt and falsify or prove that God touched you on the nose (except to yourself) with a scientific method, because God is a Spirit and is not observable with our physical eyes unless we have a spiritual vision or our spiritual senses are active.

In the same way God can do things in the lives and minds of people that cannot be scientifically determined and verified, it's not a cop out but simply what is true. You absolutely have to come to God by means of the spiritual to get anything from the spiritual. John 3: 3-7

Sure you can reduce the beliefs and concepts of God to that of fairies and gremlins but you're only reducing your own potential and selling out your intellectual honesty.

John 4
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Romans 8
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.

13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

It's about time someone other than myself has realized this grand truth aha

Yes my brotha! the spirit is grand, there is much to learn here and after :)

Amen brother, My friends are surprised by me cuz i come to conclusions on my own rather than look them up or have them taught. I do take inspiration from other thinkers.