If God is natural I should be able to test for the existence of God in some measure. How can we go about testing for the existence of God? Basically, outline the test and the expected results.
ackack
ackack
JoinedPosts by ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
There is a possibility that a Creator exists. There is no evidence for a Creator. These two statements are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct. One must be wrong.
This premise is wrong. Both statements can be true.
Do you have evidence for a creator?
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
AuldSoul, I don't think you know what supernatural means.
Look, this entire discussion is pointless. You have no evidence, no tests which can be offered to prove God's existence. I have no evidence of test to prove or disprove God's existence. Just leave it at that, and get on with discussion ID instead of continuing this off-topic discussion.
And for the record, natural things can be tested. If God becomes a testable part of objective reality, we'll pick that up again then.
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
AuldSoul, you're missing the point. There can be no "objective" evidence for or against the existence of God. You seem be thinking I'm against (or others) the existence of God. I would deride anyone who offered "proof" for the non-existence of God.
Personal testimonials, for obvious reasons, cannot be considered proof for anything. Personal experiences at best just give us something to think about.
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
AuldSoul, I don't consider them invalid. I don't think you have to be crazy to believe in God, UFOs, homeopathy etc. Believing something because of personal experience as well as other's personal experiences is quite normal. Even people who have profound personal experiences (in this case UFO abduction trauma) respond physiologically the same as people who underwent more concrete trauma.
The experience can be real to you in every sense that counts. Who am I to validate or invalidate that experience. You don't want to share your experience, thats just fine.
These experiences though cannot be used to furnish proof in any objective sense, but like I said earlier, belief in God requires faith, and I think thats just fine.
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
So, what evidence do you have for the existence of God?
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
So, what evidence do you have for the existence of God?
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
AuldSoul, you missed the point. Wtf is "everyday proof"?
Imposing the scientific method (and its accompanying maxims) outside the laboratory is insane. Can you imagine the world economy in an environment where the scientific method was really put to use? Think on that one for two seconds and you will see the wisdom in keeping the scientific method in its place. In fact, if the scientific method were really applied to everything, there would shortly be no funding for science.
Honestly, what are you talking about?
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
But, in the public, many people have the existence of God proven to them every day. When I believe something, it has been proven to me. I have been exposed to sufficient evidence to compel belief.
Can you spot... the tautology?!
ackack
-
159
Logically consistent theories of ID exist.
by hooberus inthe following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.
"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.
" the biotic message page.
-
-
ackack
Scientific proof is not everyday proof.
This statement makes my head hurt.
Arguing about the evidence for the existence of God is a rather pointless discussion. The question is unprovable. Its a matter of faith. Have faith in their being a God, or have faith in their being no God. The whole discussion is rather pointless.
ID (Behe in actuality) on the other hand posits a testable scientific hypothesis which evidence has shown to be false, namely, irreducible complex of the flagellum and blood clotting. I don't know of any other tests ID proposes. I would like to know of any others.
ackack