No, again you aren't reading my posts, are you? I said that there is very little in the way of "proof" that an atheist would take and admit to God. Even if millions of people vanished in a supposed rapture, as some teach that the Bible says, the atheist would refuse a belief in God and instead believe in aliens or government technology. The same would've been done if many atheists were present to the supposed miracles of the Bible. There would have been ANY other reason other than God that an atheist would give credit to. I gave the example of Elijah and the Baal prophets. If one of you guys were there, I could imagine that you would claim that it was some sort of weather phenomenon that generated the fire to come down from the sky.
so now you know how atheists think despite not being one?
that entire blob violates the principles of the scientific method. if the rapture were to occur, then scientists/atheists would have to sort out why that happened. if said rapture occured at the hand of god, then the evidence would lead us there after exhaustive study. unless god still wants to pull his invisible man act after the rapture.
same deal for the miracles. if some guy is walking around curing the blind with nothing more than mud and spit, scientists/atheists would then apply the scientific methods to figure out why.
1. observe - a man is curing the blind with spit and mud.
2. question - why? is it in the components of the spit or the mud?
3. hypothesize - i believe the cure is inthe materials used
4. experiment - test the mud and saliva. compare with a large sample of various muds and saliva. determine if there is anything different about the mud and saliva used, perform controlled studies with placebos to see if that mud or saliva will cure more people and collect the data.
5. analyze the data - does the data support the hypothesis? no?
then back to 3.
3. hypothesize - it wasn't the materials so maybe it's the guy himself?
4. experiment - check to see if there are abnormalities in the person's body/blood, etc if given permission. check family history, check neighbor's histories, test this against a large random sample size.
5. analyze the data - does the data support it's the guy? yes?
6. publish results
of course we're still not at the conclusion that this guy was god though. after publishing and letting others observe the data and samples, if the data holds up, then we question why this guy was so special.
and on and on we go until we reach the inevitable conclusion that this was god, or his son, or whatever. if that were truly the case.
that's the scientific method. that's LOGIC.
it does not seek to prove or disprove anything. only to understand why something happened.
I'm not asking for proof that God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist. Most intelligent atheists will admit that. Just as much as an honest believer would say that there isn't sufficient proof to prove that He does exist. My proof is largely experiencial. And while that can be mocked and discredited by some, my experience has convinced me of God. Also my logic has convinced me that if something as simple as a watch has a maker, then I don't believe it to be outrageous and off the wall to believe that a far more complex universe has a maker. I don't see that as unreasonable. And many other scientists (theistic evolutionists for one) don't either. But maybe we should all start listening to hades and his ideas so we can suddenly "get more smarter".
except there is evidence, you simply refuse to look at it. there is the intellectual dishonesty. that anecdotal evidence isn't mocked, it's the reality that anecdotal evidence means nothing in terms of proof, yet constantly put forth as such while refusing to understand why it is wrong. this is also part of logic.
if someone came to you arguing that 1+1 = 5, and refused to look at you holding up one finger, and then another finger showing two fingers instead of 5, at some point even the hardiest of people would get irritated.
it's not "my ideas" ffs. did i discover anything in anthropology?
did i publish any authoritative papers in math or science?
NO. not my ideas, it's just reality. you can remain ignorant to it if you so chose, but i think you're selling yourself very short
