@Romanov2488
Use the scientific method to self-inspect.
I use the Jesus method to self-inspect.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
@Romanov2488
Use the scientific method to self-inspect.
Aristotle solved the problem of proving God millenia ago with the prime mover argument. The physical universe could not exist without the metaphysical.
Plato and his theory of Idealism explained the metaphysical nature of our world (and Jung later expanded upon it with his theory of the collective unconscious) thus proving that the mind is itself a metaphysical thing.
St. Anselm both proved the existence of (again) and explained the properties of God (borrowing from Idealism) and later on, mathematician Godel formalized them into a logical proof.
So yes God can be proven to exist through the exercise of logic, and also His qualities can be understood.
Why can't the metaphysical be measured by the physical? Because it exists outside the physical by its very definition. If it were measurable, then it would not be metaphysical at all but merely a physical phenomenon. Or in other words, it is logically impossible to measure the metaphysical with the physical and therefore completely pointless to complain about. If you lived inside a sealed metal box your whole life and never saw the outside world, how would you be able to prove it existed using only your natural perceptions?
Because you pervert the very meaning of empirical evidence by mixing it up with magical thinking. You masquerade as a false scientist with religion in your back pocket.Empirical science. Empirical evidence means nothing to you.
Incorrect. Ask a Catholic and they will agree Protestants are heretics. Saying I speak from a position of ignorance is your own projection.WRONG.
You’re speaking from a position of ignorance here.
A Protestant who is NOT a former Catholic is NOT considered to be a heretic.
ONLY Catholics who have repudiated doctrinal positions of the Catholic faith are considered to be heretics. These are the ones whom the Anathemas of Trent were aimed at. The Church cannot anathematize (excommunicate) a person who does NOT belong to the Church.
As for Catholics “worshipping” saints and statues – this is just more ignorant nonsense.
I suggest you do your homework . . .
Because if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. I find it odd that many Christians try to weasel themselves out of this. All of this “overwhelming evidence” and so many non-believers such as myself. Does that make us lost of confused? Of course not. Only to a bigot it would.Why does evidence have to be of God? If God is God, He would not want to be revealed except in secret?
God being revealed in secret, does not stop you from evidencing change (in your own life).
If anything that makes change in your own life, even more convincing evidence - God could applaud the changes you make in front of everyone, but then you would have nothing to say for yourself.
God is not trying to take change away from you, He is trying to bring you to a point, where you can change under your own steam!
Alright, let's examine a claim. You claim to have a mind, a consciousness, a subjective personal experience, free will, etc. This is an implicit claim because you expect us to debate with you and there is no purpose in changing the mind of a being that does not have these things.Because if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. I find it odd that many Christians try to weasel themselves out of this. All of this “overwhelming evidence” and so many non-believers such as myself. Does that make us lost of confused? Of course not. Only to a bigot it would.
Because you pervert the very meaning of empirical evidence by mixing it up with magical thinking.
You masquerade as a false scientist with religion in your back pocket.
I'm up for the challenge. You do know that there are religious scientists, right? Sad but obvious that you put your faith in man, specifically those who rationalize a paradigm based on something came from nothing.Empirical evidence…proceeds to spew things such as “evidence of faith”. More like evidence of irrationality. I wish you could speak up in front of the entire science community to see the reaction you’d get. Let’s see how many people you’d convince.
Dude, you shared a video by Ken Ham who fleeced an entire town to build an ark in Kentucky via millions in subsidies and going from non-profit to for-profit. A grade A grifter and snakeoil salesman.Pure fiction. The geometric analysis of the shroud, which shows numerous images through time, including movement of the foot, chest, and coins has nothing to do with magic.
The DNA informational content being 4D, whereas humans can only communicate code in 2D has nothing to do with magic.
The probability that Jesus fulfilled 246 prophecies has nothing to do with magic. And much more, like the Big Bang Theory.
All this is undeniable scientific evidence.
You being closed-minded turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence you are drowning in because the implications, the causes of this evidence is to awesome for you to contemplate.
I assure you that I am a real scientist, with 2 degrees in science + 30 years experience. You are the one wearing a false mask.
I'm up for the challenge. You do know that there are religious scientists, right? Sad but obvious that you put your faith in man, specifically those who rationalize a paradigm based on something came from nothing.
The evidence is there. It's just the paradigm secular scientists are willing or not willing to view the evidence from, e.g., determining the age of things via a decay rate that is assumed to be constant over time.
Your basic failure is continuing to make an argument when I and others have lived experience. Imagine how silly it would be for others to claim aliens do not exist when you experienced them coming to you, taking you to their ship and showing you their technology. You have set yourself a false standard of judgment, denying the legal evidence and standard of more likely than not (civil trial) that billions of people throughout history testify and witness to the truth of God in their lives is why their lives were transformed.
Pure fiction: the geometric analysis of the shroud, which shows numerous images through time, including movement of the foot, chest, and coins.Pure fiction. The geometric analysis of the shroud, which shows numerous images through time, including movement of the foot, chest, and coins has nothing to do with magic.
The DNA informational content being 4D, whereas humans can only communicate code in 2D has nothing to do with magic.
The probability that Jesus fulfilled 246 prophecies has nothing to do with magic. And much more, like the Big Bang Theory.
All this is undeniable scientific evidence.
You being closed-minded turn a blind eye to the scientific evidence you are drowning in because the implications, the causes of this evidence is to awesome for you to contemplate.
I assure you that I am a real scientist, with 2 degrees in science + 30 years experience. You are the one wearing a false mask.
I'm up for the challenge. You do know that there are religious scientists, right? Sad but obvious that you put your faith in man, specifically those who rationalize a paradigm based on something came from nothing.
The evidence is there. It's just the paradigm secular scientists are willing or not willing to view the evidence from, e.g., determining the age of things via a decay rate that is assumed to be constant over time.
Your basic failure is continuing to make an argument when I and others have lived experience. Imagine how silly it would be for others to claim aliens do not exist when you experienced them coming to you, taking you to their ship and showing you their technology. You have set yourself a false standard of judgment, denying the legal evidence and standard of more likely than not (civil trial) that billions of people throughout history testify and witness to the truth of God in their lives is why their lives were transformed.
1st, did I reference this?Dude, you shared a video by Ken Ham who fleeced an entire town to build an ark in Kentucky
The point is the title. Claiming there is a god is an unfalsifiable claim, it cannot be tested via the scientific method or anything. This is also the NON-Christian section. I find it funny that some Christians come into this sub forum wondering why something being posted isn’t Christian. If you go into the Christian section, you’re going to find the homophobic tendency of many upholding that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible and if you go into the non-Christian section, you’re going to find someone saying that the Bible is homophobic. It’s just the way it isWhat is the point of this thread? Why are all of your posts like this?
Did you know that there is an entire school of thought called Rationalism, which uses reason rather than observation to prove things?The point is the title. Claiming there is a god is an unfalsifiable claim, it cannot be tested via the scientific method or anything.
What do homosexuals have to do with the topic?This is also the NON-Christian section. I find it funny that some Christians come into this sub forum wondering why something being posted isn’t Christian. If you go into the Christian section, you’re going to find the homophobic tendency of many upholding that homosexuality is an abomination according to the Bible and if you go into the non-Christian section, you’re going to find someone saying that the Bible is homophobic. It’s just the way it is
Science is empirical. The scientific method can only be applied to that which can be observed, within space-time. God by definition is outside of space-time. Just because observation is fallible, does not automatically give leeway to shove in God in order to fill the gap. Mind you, empirical science is the most effective tool we know of for gaining understanding of the universe. If you default to inserting God at every turn, you effectively seize moving forward.Did you know that there is an entire school of thought called Rationalism, which uses reason rather than observation to prove things?
There is a major flaw with pure empiricism. I call it the headless chicken fallacy. Imagine a chicken on a farm. Every day, the farmer comes and cleans the coop, provides fresh food and water, fixes the fence that provides security from foxes. This goes on for months, so the chicken concludes, based on observation, the farmer is my benevolent friend and guardian. Then one day the farmer comes and chops the chicken's head off and turns him into a stew.
Had the chicken been wrong about the farmer? Is observation fallible?
What do homosexuals have to do with the topic?
You posted that video of Ken Ham. I think it’s worth looking into the background of these people who you listen to/promote. Why would I listen to a grifter?1st, did I reference this?
2nd, the reference to this has nothing to do with what I posted.
3rd, have you taken up my 30-day challenge? If not, don't ever talk about science on this forum again.
I'm not talking about science, I am talking about Rationalism. Science is not the be-all end-all. Another name for science is "Natural philosophy". It is a branch of philosophy, a method for arriving at knowledge, but it is not knowledge itself.Science is empirical.
Yes, this is why it is nonsensical to try to use science to try to measure the metaphysical and one must exercise reason instead.The scientific method can only be applied to that which can be observed, within space-time. God by definition is outside of space-time.
What gap? I have never referred to any gap in knowledge, but rather a certainty arrived at by logical deduction.Just because observation is fallible, does not automatically give leeway to shove in God in order to fill the gap.
I am not inserting God into the universe at all, but rather outside of it.Mind you, empirical science is the most effective tool we know of for gaining understanding of the universe. If you default to inserting God at every turn, you effectively seize moving forward.
My argument is the same as Aristotle's, Plato's and St. Anselm's. It has nothing to do with science being imperfect.Your argument is essentially boiling down to, “Science isn’t perfect, therefore God” which is a grave mistake. Science can admit when it’s wrong and is ever-changing.
Science logically cannot measure God.Religious absolutists already have their mind made up, there is not one thing that could convince them otherwise. If science was to actually discover a god, the religious would dismiss it.
Godel's ontological proof has even been machine-verified as logically correct. So, unless you can disprove logic itself, it would be a hard task to disprove God.I am willing to admit that I could be wrong about the existence of God. But would a Christian fundamentalist also be capable of doing the same? Not even close, for he is too high up on his horse.
Allah is just the Arabic name for God. Arab Christians also call God Allah.Besides, God isn’t the only unfalsifiable claim. You also have Allah and others. But yet you have a bias for the Christian God whilst dismissing Allah. They’re both unfalsifiable claims.