Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I believe i found a way to prove God exists

Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 6:42:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

The bible is full of scientific contradictions (existence of magic, creating universes violating physical laws, eternal and timeless beings prior to the creation , a young planet Earth, inconsistencies with evolutionary theory, etc), and speaks of the attributes God (ie tri-omni) that are impossible from a logical point of view. Using only logic, everyone can conclude that the biblical God does not exist. Is the biblical God, nonexistent, based on a different God that does exist? It might be interesting to investigate, but equally impossible because we would first have to determine what we want to test, who is this God? What are his attributes?

You've mentioned science creates verifiable hypotheses from observations, but neither God nor his actions have ever been observed. Every action atributed to God in the Bible is 1) scientifically inaccurate or 2) already explained by science through a natural (and therefore more likely) phenomenon.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:20:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 6:42:17 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

The bible is full of scientific contradictions (existence of magic, creating universes violating physical laws, eternal and timeless beings prior to the creation , a young planet Earth, inconsistencies with evolutionary theory, etc), and speaks of the attributes God (ie tri-omni) that are impossible from a logical point of view. Using only logic, everyone can conclude that the biblical God does not exist. Is the biblical God, nonexistent, based on a different God that does exist? It might be interesting to investigate, but equally impossible because we would first have to determine what we want to test, who is this God? What are his attributes?

You've mentioned science creates verifiable hypotheses from observations, but neither God nor his actions have ever been observed. Every action atributed to God in the Bible is 1) scientifically inaccurate or 2) already explained by science through a natural (and therefore more likely) phenomenon.

Like i said, you gave no evidence from the original Hebrew to support your claims or any evidence at all to support that there are contradictions.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:29:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.

lol the Bible doesn't even support a global flood, it supports a local one.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 2:21:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Dude, the Bible explicitly said so!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 2:30:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dudes, most of the stuff in the bible is metaphorical... Jonah in the belly of the whale (beast), for example. And the flood, too, has certain Kafka-esque charms about it. See, the mind swallows up metaphors like they were skittles and doesn't even realise it. And this is commonly used in film, too, to evoke emotion and feelings of realness. There is no proof because it's just a story of mind... But a damn good one is the scary thing.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 2:54:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:20:22 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
Like i said, you gave no evidence from the original Hebrew to support your claims or any evidence at all to support that there are contradictions.

Lev 11:20 All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.
Insects have six legs, not four.

Lev 11:21 There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper.
Again, they have SIX legs, not four.

11:23 But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest.[1]
There's no winged creature with four legs.

Lev 11:13-19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Bats are not fowls, but mammals.

Mat 13:31-32 13:31 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
13:32 Which indeed is the least of all seeds.
Orchid seeds are the smallest of all seeds, not mustard's!

Revelation 8:10: And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters.
Stars can not burn "like lamps" nor can they fall to Earth without destroying the whole Solar System...

Genesis 1:16 God made the stars and two great lights: the larger light to rule over the day and the smaller light to rule over the night.
The moon is not a light and has no light. Its light is but a reflection of the Sun's.

Genesis 1:10 God named the dry land Earth,
1:11 God said, "Let the earth grow plant life: plants yielding seeds and fruit trees bearing fruit with seeds inside it, each according to its kind throughout the earth."
12 The earth produced plant life: plants yielding seeds, each according to its kind, and trees bearing fruit with seeds inside it, each according to its kind.
14 God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night. They will mark events, sacred seasons, days, and years.
1) Sun older than Earth, and yet God claims he created Earth and then Sun. 2) Plants need the sun in order to survive, and yet God claims he made first plants and then the Sun.

Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Not "every herb" nor "every tree" shall be for meat. There are hundreds of poisonous herbs and trees!

Genesis 1:30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
Again there's plenty of poisonous green herbs, and there are obviously a lot of beasts, fowls and "things that creepeth upon the Earth" that can not eat vegetables because they are not herbivores.

Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
We know everything described in Genesis happened through billions of years not six days, and more importantly, in a different order.

But there's also historical innacuracies, ie:
Mat 2:16-18 Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. 17 Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
"A voice was heard in Ramah,
Weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children;

But this is not a prophecy about children being killed! As Rachel is "weeping for her children" because they have been taken captive to Egypt. Subsequent verses even speak of the children being returned. Even Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses, makes no mention the supposed slaughter.

On Mark gospel, we are told about Gadarene swine stepping down a cliff and drowning in the Sea of Galilee. While Gadara is actually several kilometers away from the sea!

Mark also knows little to nothing about Palestine, something evident while he ridiculously recounts the journey of Jesus: To go from Tyre to the sea of Galilee, he says Jesus passes through Sidon, which is like saying that in order to go from California to Mexico, you need to pass through Ottawa. He then claims Jesus visists Dalmanutha which is apparently a fictitious city, and that the eastern shore of the lake is Gerasa, which is a city that has no coast, nor lakes, and is more than thirty miles south from the lake!.

According to Luke and Mat, during the reign of Quirinius, during a census ordered by Augustus throughout the whole world, Jesus was born. It was also during the reign of king Herod. And yet Herod died in 4 B.C.E., ten years before Quirinius' census. Furthermore, during Herod's reign, no Roman census could have been held in his territory, which included both Judaea and Galilee, the locations of both Bethlehem and Nazareth. Herod would have collected his own taxes, and given tribute to the Romans. Lastly, the existence of a census throughout the whole empire is contrary to the practice of the Romans, who collected taxes province by province, often subcontracting the process to "publicans." (http://infidels.org...)

""Luke tells how a decree went out from Augustus that "all the world should be registered". The trouble is that there is absolutely no trace"in a well document period"of such a decree. It"s simply a means of getting Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for theological reasons. The messiah had to be of Davidic descent, and thus from Bethlehem. Luke says the birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means it could not have happened before 6 C.E., the year we know he took office. At the same time, Matthew says Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power in Judea. But Herod died in 4 B.C.E.! The authors of The Jesus Mysteries point out that Mary"s real miracle, if both references are taken genuinely, was "a 10-year pregnancy". For Matthew, Jesus" hometown was Bethlehem. For Luke, it was Nazareth. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, pp. 125-126)

There exists, outside of the New Testament, no evidence whatever, in book, inscription, or monument, that Jesus of Nazareth was either scourged or crucified under Philo, Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, Epictectus, Cluvius Rufus, Quintus, Curtis Rufus, Josephus, nor the Roman Consul, Publius Petronius nor any of their contemporaries, ever refer to the fact of this crucifixion. The crucifixion also was unknown to early Christians until as late as the Second Century. (http://www.thegrimoire.com...)

The Gospels describe the Pilate as merciful when History describes him as wicked and malicious. Yet the Coptic Church in Ethiopia has turned Pilate into a saint! (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...)
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:34:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:29:25 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.

lol the Bible doesn't even support a global flood, it supports a local one.

Then its pretty darn inaccurate.

The Bible is explicit when it says "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.""

Also if you think the ark would have floated and survived you are so wrong, never mind all the other issues of water, food and waste being afloat for about a year I believe.
Shadow-Dragon
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 5:41:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
One doesn't need to reference the Bible to know that God exists.
One can already tell that God exists, but the Bible reinforces that statement.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 6:32:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:29:25 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.

lol the Bible doesn't even support a global flood, it supports a local one.

"I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

There is no locale about that. The face of the Earth. This is but one of many lines in the story of Noah that suggest the supposed flood was a global one.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 8:54:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 6:32:52 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:29:25 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.

lol the Bible doesn't even support a global flood, it supports a local one.

"I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

There is no locale about that. The face of the Earth. This is but one of many lines in the story of Noah that suggest the supposed flood was a global one.

that's not what it says in the original Hebrew
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:08:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 5:41:58 PM, Shadow-Dragon wrote:
One doesn't need to reference the Bible to know that God exists.
One can already tell that God exists, but the Bible reinforces that statement.

How can one already tell god exists? Where is the evidence.

And, why does the Bible reinforce this?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:11:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 8:54:56 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 6:32:52 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:29:25 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.

lol the Bible doesn't even support a global flood, it supports a local one.

"I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

There is no locale about that. The face of the Earth. This is but one of many lines in the story of Noah that suggest the supposed flood was a global one.

that's not what it says in the original Hebrew

So the word of an omnipotent all loving God can only be understood by a select few who can read the Hebrew? SO there is no translation that is acceptable? This means every Christian in the majority of the world is basing their belief of a false text. That is what you are saying.

BTW does Noah's ark also exist in the Hebrew? Are the dimensions the same, did they take all the animals on the ark? Was it afloat for a year?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:12:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.

Really? So when it says in the Bible that God answers all prayers that is not a testable scientific hypothesis?
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:11:26 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 8:54:56 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 6:32:52 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:29:25 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.

lol the Bible doesn't even support a global flood, it supports a local one.

"I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

There is no locale about that. The face of the Earth. This is but one of many lines in the story of Noah that suggest the supposed flood was a global one.

that's not what it says in the original Hebrew

So the word of an omnipotent all loving God can only be understood by a select few who can read the Hebrew? SO there is no translation that is acceptable? This means every Christian in the majority of the world is basing their belief of a false text. That is what you are saying.

BTW does Noah's ark also exist in the Hebrew? Are the dimensions the same, did they take all the animals on the ark? Was it afloat for a year?

It's accessible to everyone. Yes it does exist in Hebrew.
Truth_seeker
Posts: 1,811
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 10:15:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:12:34 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.

Really? So when it says in the Bible that God answers all prayers that is not a testable scientific hypothesis?

It depends on the tests.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:14:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:15:21 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:12:34 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.

Really? So when it says in the Bible that God answers all prayers that is not a testable scientific hypothesis?

It depends on the tests.

So when the results go against the Bible then the test is wrong. If it agrees with the Bible (which has never happened) then its right?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2014 11:19:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:14:32 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:11:26 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 8:54:56 PM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 6:32:52 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:29:25 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:27:59 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:21:26 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:18:19 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

Sowe can test the Bible.
So firstly which Genesis account should we use?
Then the Earth was flooded yet there is zero evidence to support this.
The Earth/Universes is 6000 years old, zero evidence to prove it.

Testable claims fail. If we now use your rationale in reverse. God does not exist.

Same with you, no evidence that the Bible supports a global flood and that the Bible actually says the universe is 6,000 years old.

Great! The Noah story is wrong and the geneology in the Bible is incorrect. Not such a great document to believe in then.

lol the Bible doesn't even support a global flood, it supports a local one.

"I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

There is no locale about that. The face of the Earth. This is but one of many lines in the story of Noah that suggest the supposed flood was a global one.

that's not what it says in the original Hebrew

So the word of an omnipotent all loving God can only be understood by a select few who can read the Hebrew? SO there is no translation that is acceptable? This means every Christian in the majority of the world is basing their belief of a false text. That is what you are saying.

BTW does Noah's ark also exist in the Hebrew? Are the dimensions the same, did they take all the animals on the ark? Was it afloat for a year?

It's accessible to everyone. Yes it does exist in Hebrew.

I don't read Hebrew, I have no desire to learn it. As such it is inaccessible to me. The end.

Noah's ark. Prove it works.
Here are some simple stuff I have done to show it does not work.
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...
http://iamchristianiamanatheist.blogspot.kr...
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 7:29:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/8/2014 10:12:34 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.

Really? So when it says in the Bible that God answers all prayers that is not a testable scientific hypothesis?

It is. Some get answered and some don't.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 5:44:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 7:29:55 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:12:34 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.

Really? So when it says in the Bible that God answers all prayers that is not a testable scientific hypothesis?

It is. Some get answered and some don't.

Some get answered some do not.
So the scientific hypothesis tested using Mathew 21:22 "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." Is false
http://biblehub.com...

the Bible fails. Congratulations you just proved my point.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 8:16:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 5:44:31 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/9/2014 7:29:55 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:12:34 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.

Really? So when it says in the Bible that God answers all prayers that is not a testable scientific hypothesis?

It is. Some get answered and some don't.

Some get answered some do not.
So the scientific hypothesis tested using Mathew 21:22 "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." Is false
http://biblehub.com...

the Bible fails. Congratulations you just proved my point.

The bible doesn't fail entirely.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2014 8:30:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/9/2014 8:16:09 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/9/2014 5:44:31 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/9/2014 7:29:55 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 10:12:34 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 9/8/2014 9:56:27 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/8/2014 1:58:29 AM, Truth_seeker wrote:
I think most fail to disprove God's existence because they don't understand how science works. I'll admit a lot of arguments for God's existence from logic alone don't precisely prove their particular God's existence. Which God and how can we determine if he exists? Well obviously we can't see him just as we can't see Dark Matter, however Science knows that it exists by inference (observations of it's effects on galaxies). If experts can successfully verify the historical and scientific reliability of the Bible (creation, claims of the universe, prophecies, miracles, etc.) as it is God's Word then that is one step closer to proving God's existence. If God's defined as absolute then the universe can either prove or disprove him. We must realize the limits of our knowledge though, thus we cannot expect direct observation of God. The scientific method relies on several key things which are as follows:

1. Making observations

2. Asking questions which can be tested to determine the probability of an outcome.

3. Formulating a hypothesis "If then statement"

4. Independent variables (variables which can be changed) and dependent variables (variables depending on many factors).

5. Control groups help eliminate alternative possibilities affecting the experiment

Science is about comparing and contrasting. The only reason science concludes that a cause is unknown is if all possibilities have equal validity and have not been ruled out. Once they've been eliminated, the simplest explanation is the best.

You would have to mathematically calculate all the possibilities which could potentially disprove God and determine which one is unlikely or likely. Many that i have heard so far are based on ignorance and not on any testable model. Some ridiculous claims are:

* The big bang states that nothing brought everything therefore God did not create everything - This is completely false, the big bang states the universe expanded from a tiny dense point.

There's plenty more that i can't name at the top of my head. People will propose that God is caused by a psychological disorder, he's a hallucination, that prophecies are coincidence, anyone can make a true prophecy, but they all show a lack of understanding of how science works. How did they arrive at that conclusion? What tests can they show that would match God's behavior? Do other predictions match the Bible's? If so, which ones have been fulfilled and how? Skeptics don't attack God head on. If i were a skeptic, i'd waste no time with creationism, claims of Christians, etc. I'd go straight to the original documents and determine which interpretation is the most supported one then go from there. You also have to deal with other religions as well and comparing them with the Bible in order to make sure that other gods aren't also equally valid.

Once you rule out all possibilities against God's existence using probability and science, the simplest explanation would be to conclude God exists.

There is no way to scientifically prove God. Especially when he asks for faith in him. Religion is just a matter of personal faith and can't be dealt with scientifically. Because the scientific method works on that which is material when God is spiritual and nonmaterial.

Really? So when it says in the Bible that God answers all prayers that is not a testable scientific hypothesis?

It is. Some get answered and some don't.

Some get answered some do not.
So the scientific hypothesis tested using Mathew 21:22 "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." Is false
http://biblehub.com...

the Bible fails. Congratulations you just proved my point.

The bible doesn't fail entirely.

So you know whats true and whats not. In other words you are applying skeptical thinking to claims. You are playing god by deciding what is real and what is not.