I can point to very thorough research that I haven't seen successfully challenged. I'm completely open to those ideas being incorrect. Is that wrong?? And whilst we struggle to validate all of those points, our individual experiences all corroborate each others regarding the actual belief stance we all take.

You don't call anything into question. You refuse to address it, instead blindly asserting your own myth.

That's where we are here: A mythical belief that we can understand everything using science.

I'd settle with understanding claims to the material with science, since that can be handled quite nicely. Including any claims where the "supernatural" is said to have interfered or otherwise come into contact with the "regular nature?". Too much to ask?

(such as would be the case with miracles, including the miracle of heaven, souls etc)

I'd settle with understanding claims to the supernatural referenced by what we can demonstrate. This is what leads us to classify things as myth, mythical, or mythological. Without any evidence in support of your position (not arguing against others positions) why should yours be afforded any merit, respect, or reverence? Further, why should yours be offered something over the next guys? You ask why science comes to any conclusion that it does (tentative as it is) and they pony up with their evidence. You can criticize it all you like, if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny then fuck it. Are you going to sit here and make the argument that faith in a christian god (and specifically faith in a certain interpretation of the many christian gods)and the scientific method have anything in common, anything at all beyond the superficial? I hope not.

How about you tell me about seeking god, and the reasons you feel your description of this search (how it should be done, where one should look, what criteria one should apply in the search) is accurate? Did you employ these methods to reach your own conclusion? Can the same methods be used to reach any other conclusion, perhaps a competing one? Can this line of reasoning be used for anything else? Can we get a false positive in using it? What would invalidate this line of reasoning?

A does not prove B without first proving A. I think that is all that needs to be said. Stick to Occam's razer.

Already asked if a search can ever be called unsuccessful, Rhythm (and if so, if it's ever God's fault). Never got an answer, amazingly.

I don't care, I'm done with this thread, Lucent blindly argues with no backup, rejects evidence so why bother.

(October 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'd settle with understanding claims to the material with science, since that can be handled quite nicely. Including any claims where the "supernatural" is said to have interfered or otherwise come into contact with the "regular nature?". Too much to ask?

(such as would be the case with miracles, including the miracle of heaven, souls etc)

We have the life of Jesus Christ, for which there is historical evidence, and to confirm the bible, a great deal of archaelogical evidence.

(October 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'd settle with understanding claims to the supernatural referenced by what we can demonstrate. This is what leads us to classify things as myth, mythical, or mythological. Without any evidence in support of your position (not arguing against others positions) why should yours be afforded any merit, respect, or reverence? Further, why should yours be offered something over the next guys? You ask why science comes to any conclusion that it does (tentative as it is) and they pony up with their evidence. You can criticize it all you like, if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny then fuck it. Are you going to sit here and make the argument that faith in a christian god (and specifically faith in a certain interpretation of the many christian gods)and the scientific method have anything in common, anything at all beyond the superficial? I hope not.

What I am claiming is that science has not staked any real claim to origins, either cosmic origins or the origins of life.

(October 30, 2011 at 6:19 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How about you tell me about seeking god, and the reasons you feel your description of this search (how it should be done, where one should look, what criteria one should apply in the search) is accurate? Did you employ these methods to reach your own conclusion? Can the same methods be used to reach any other conclusion, perhaps a competing one? Can this line of reasoning be used for anything else? Can we get a false positive in using it? What would invalidate this line of reasoning?

My suggestion is to ask God for the truth. If you genuinely want to know, He will let you know. If you take that step, a small leap of faith, He will honor it. What I suggest is prayer, bible study and attending church. I know many atheists can barely be bothered to try prayer, but that is my recommendation.

I feel it is accurate because I know God is listening. He will honor a request to know if He is really God. Yes, I did employ these methods. I was tapped on the shoulder, but I did do my own research. I gained a bit of an understanding of scripture before I gave my life to Jesus.

Yes, you could employ these methods and fail. It wholly depends on your level of sincerity. God is seeking those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth. You said you would open fire on God, so who knows if He would honor your request. You could receive any sort of conclusion, including a competing conclusion or a false positive, based on what is in your heart. Satan is going to do whatever he can to deceive you from the truth, and if you're insincere, it's like you'll believe anything other than the truth. You just have to trust God to give you the right answers and lead you in a way you will understand. It could be invalidated if you could prove God didn't exist. There isn't any way to see what God is or isn't going to do, or why. We go by what He prosmised to do.

Hasn't everything you've just said been dealt with at length in this very thread? Ask a loon a question and the answer you get is going to be crazy. Referencing your myth to itself isn't going to end up providing a rational response or evidence at any point Lucent. You're an adult, presumably you're educated, you claim to have done research into this, I shouldn't have to explain why over and over again.

You'll find wodan, but loki is always looking to decieve. It's on you, and if you don't reach wodan thats your bad. There can be no evidence of wodan because that would eliminate your choice in searching, also it would erode free will. That being said, evidence for wodan is all around us. In fact, atheist scientists actively suppress the truth about this. I know all of this because I asked and he honored my request for knowledge. You just have to trust wodan. It could be invalidated if you could prove that he doesn't exist. There really isn't any way to see what he's doing or why. We can only go by what he promised to do.