(January 31, 2013 at 11:59 am)catfish Wrote: You think because I reject accepting all of scripture, it's an admission of ignorance? Explain please...

You said it was beyond your means and there were a lot of dogmatic "will nots".

(January 31, 2013 at 11:59 am)catfish Wrote: So you think that something you call "supernatural" has a natural existence? I'm confused about your understanding of the term "supernatual" now...
.

If it interacts with natural existence then it will become a part of natural existence. We would then be able to observe through the scientific method. The Biblical God isn't something completely non-falsifable as deistic God would be, so what you have is a burden of proof that requires real physical evidence of some kind.

(January 31, 2013 at 12:20 pm)Zone Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 11:59 am)catfish Wrote: So you think that something you call "supernatural" has a natural existence? I'm confused about your understanding of the term "supernatual" now...
.

If it interacts with natural existence then it will become a part of natural existence. We would then be able to observe through the scientific method. The Biblical God isn't something completely non-falsifable as deistic God would be, so what you have is a burden of proof that requires real physical evidence of some kind.

No I don't have the burdon of proof...
.

(January 31, 2013 at 12:20 pm)Zone Wrote: If it interacts with natural existence then it will become a part of natural existence. We would then be able to observe through the scientific method. The Biblical God isn't something completely non-falsifable as deistic God would be, so what you have is a burden of proof that requires real physical evidence of some kind.

You can observe reality, which an interactive deity is proposed to have created and manages. What more evidence can you logically need?

(January 31, 2013 at 12:13 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 11:59 am)catfish Wrote: You think because I reject accepting all of scripture, it's an admission of ignorance? Explain please...

You said it was beyond your means and there were a lot of dogmatic "will nots".

It's beyond my means to purchase a space station. It's also beyond my means to accept that I can breath fire. How does that make me ignorant?

Or do you expect me to allow my mind to be opened to possesion so that I can believe these things? (this is what you want, right, "holy spirit" crap?)

It's simple, I cannot believe and accept that which I do not...
.

---

(January 31, 2013 at 12:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 31, 2013 at 12:20 pm)Zone Wrote: If it interacts with natural existence then it will become a part of natural existence. We would then be able to observe through the scientific method. The Biblical God isn't something completely non-falsifable as deistic God would be, so what you have is a burden of proof that requires real physical evidence of some kind.

You can observe reality, which an interactive deity is proposed to have created and manages. What more evidence can you logically need?

Imagine a rose in your mind. Now give me proof of that image...
.

(January 31, 2013 at 12:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can observe reality, which an interactive deity is proposed to have created and manages. What more evidence can you logically need?

You can propose that there isn't an interactive deity or any deity at all if there's no evidence for the interaction in question.

(January 31, 2013 at 12:36 pm)catfish Wrote: Imagine a rose in your mind. Now give me proof of that image...
.

The rose would only exist for me seeing as it's existence would be subjective. But God is meant to be something that exists objectively and he can do objectively observable things in the universe if he's interactive. So there ought to be some evidence for that we can see.

(January 31, 2013 at 12:36 pm)catfish Wrote: It's beyond my means to purchase a space station. It's also beyond my means to accept that I can breath fire. How does that make me ignorant?

Or do you expect me to allow my mind to be opened to possesion so that I can believe these things? (this is what you want, right, "holy spirit" crap?)

It's simple, I cannot believe and accept that which I do not...

Wow you tetchy!

Interpretation... Such a fickle thing. You have an adult mind with which to consider. Therefore you have the means.

You need nothing supernatural. Just your scientifically capable brain.

You can't believe and accept what you do not. Absolutely.

---

(January 31, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Zone Wrote: You can propose that there isn't an interactive deity or any deity at all if there's no evidence for the interaction in question.

No Sir-ee Bob

We both accept that there is evidence of existence. The question is of its origination and management. Of which there cannot be scientific evidence either way, or we would break both science and theology to achieve it.

Ima let you try tho because who am I to deprive you of the untold kudos that awaits. Excuse those of us with logical minds gaffawing at such an absurdity.

(January 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Wow you tetchy!

Interpretation... Such a fickle thing. You have an adult mind with which to consider. Therefore you have the means.

Translation? I have the "means" to consider, NOT accept all of scripture.

Nice little moving of the goal posts there, don't think for a minute that I didn't catch that...
.

(January 31, 2013 at 1:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No Sir-ee Bob

We both accept that there is evidence of existence. The question is of its origination and management. Of which there cannot be scientific evidence either way, or we would break both science and theology to achieve it.

Ima let you try tho because who am I to deprive you of the untold kudos that awaits. Excuse those of us with logical minds gaffawing at such an absurdity.

The existence of existence isn't evidence for Gods existence unless God and existence are the same thing but you may as well just call it existence, or the universe or whatever. There is a great deal we don't understand about the universe or why it exists as it does but any explanation that you put forward that can be potentially detected in the natural world would be a scientific claim. If there can be no evidence of any kind ever then you're just left with pure speculation, but you can't really base a religion or a belief in a deity on that.

(January 31, 2013 at 12:41 pm)Zone Wrote: The rose would only exist for me seeing as it's existence would be subjective. But God is meant to be something that exists objectively and he can do objectively observable things in the universe if he's interactive. So there ought to be some evidence for that we can see.

(bolded by me)
That's a positive claim about God there. Who says God is meant to exist objectively?
Do you have proof of that?
.

---

(January 31, 2013 at 1:36 pm)Zone Wrote: The existence of existence isn't evidence for Gods existence unless God and existence are the same thing but you may as well just call it existence, or the universe or whatever.

Some do believe God is everything and that we are God.
If God created the universe out of nothing and supposedly encompasses everything, would we not be made out of God?
.