Jesus calls everyone.
But not everyone answers.
Many say no and give long list of reasons to support their decline.
Scientific reasons for belief in God v moral arguments against belief
by yadda yadda 2 97 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
NewChapter
First---nothing you have listed is scientific evidence for a god.
Second---Dawkins explains that there is no scientific evidence for a god.
If you want to believe in a god, you will. But there is no scientific evidence for such. Even Dawkins leaves open a tiny window for the possibility--but does not expect it to be filled with scientific evidence.
-
NewChapter
Ah---so you are not really talking about scientific evidence. You are preaching Jesus. You have certainty, and the OP warned against certainty. Perhaps you should lighten up and accept the possiblity that Thor is in charge.
-
-
James Brown
First---nothing you have listed is scientific evidence for a god.
It is scientific evidence, the interpretation is up to each human individual.
Every coin in this world has 2 sides.
Everybody here sees and interprets what they want to see, its known as free will.
-
soft+gentle
oh my - google chrome doesn't let me cut and paste whilst IE gives me blank posts
okay here is my gem from the link Yadda yadda provided in his opening post. I enjoyed this so much
http://www.godevidence.com/2012/04/5611/
"The problem is that the scientistic [not to be confused with “scientific”] belief that we can only know what science can tell us seems to be something that science cannot tell us. How can one set up a scientific experiment to demonstrate the truth of T1 [“T1” is Stenmark’s symbol for the premise, “The only kind of knowledge that we can have is scientific knowledge.”] What methods in, for instance, biology or physics are suitable for such a task? Well, hardly those methods that make it possible for scientists to discover and explain electrons, protons, genes, survival mechanisms and natural selection. Furthermore, it is not because the content of this belief is too small, too distant, or too far in the past for science to determine its truth-value (or probability). Rather it is that beliefs of this sort are not subject to scientific inquiry. We cannot come to know T1 by appeal to science alone. T1 is rather a view in the theory of knowledge and is, therefore, a piece of philosophy and not a piece of science. But if this is the case, then T1 is self-refuting. If T1 is true, then it is false. T1 falsifies itself."
-
Qcmbr
Wtf was that drivel?
-
James Brown
In the world I live in, in the world I have observed for 60 years.
Jesus has been knocking on everyones door for my lifetime and thru out recorded history.
Thor is a German myth who is not really in the race. Kind of like Ron Paul.
-
soft+gentle
exactly qcmbr - I'm afraid you have to remain in your stated inability to comprehend. dismiss it cause it doesn't make sense. cue newchapter who also repeatedly states her inability to understand ...
-
Qcmbr
S & G does that incorrect logic appeal to you because it gives your belief somewhere to hide from scientific enquiry?
Science is a means to test hypothetical assumptions about an observed phenomenon. It works by proposing a physical law and then defining what would refute that law ( for laymen we call them tests .) The strength of the hypothetical law rests upon the strength of the tests applied to it. The more rigorous and thorough the tests the more likely that the law is correct or a good approximation of what is happening. Where there are observed deviations to the law the tests are expanded and the law refined. As evidence accumulates laws are expanded, replaced or confirmed. Science is not a subject of belief it is shown by empirical evidence to be the best and most effective manner of explaining the universe and all that we observe. It is self proving. There may well be better ways to examine the universe but so far no one has proven them however, it is absolutely certain that it is not faith which over tens of thousands of years has not produced a single useful testable law but has been proven utterly wrong on every single assumption it has made with regards to health, physics, biology, maths, cosmology, geology, gravity, social science, genetics, conception, knowledge, truth and on the ability of animals to converse.