RE: Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?
August 25, 2013 at 1:31 pm
(This post was last modified: August 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm by Theo Zacharias.)
(August 25, 2013 at 1:22 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: In ancient China, they tested out herbs one by one to see which one could cure diseases. They had no medical technology that can even compare to what we had 100 years ago. But they could detect which one helped and which ones did not. Of course now all the herbs are being researched to isolate what is actually helping and detect how it does so.
In my example, it was million years not 100 years.
Also God, by definition, is omnipotent, it means that His "technology" is far more advance than just million years ahead of us.
(August 25, 2013 at 1:22 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: Lack of technology still detects big changes. It's the small ones they have trouble with. If god caused a small change it should lead to a bigger change, or are you saying that it'll stop at the small change? If you're saying that the bigger change is indistinguishable from other things that are not affected by god, then well, you're free to stick to that but that really is just semantics that has no practical impact.
No, I'm not saying that small change should not lead to a bigger change. I'm saying that our current technology *may* not be able to detect that small/big change.
Btw, I have to go. Not sure if I can be online again next week.
But if I can, I will response to any posts directed to me at that time. Sorry again for any inconvenience because of this.
