Questions about God and Science

[Polaris]

Yes. I took a couple classes from him while at that university. I would have wanted to take more, but he was not in my actual discipline(s). I am also connected with him on Facebook and maybe even Twitter still, but I almost never use that anymore. Of all atheists I have met, I respect him the most.

Sorry... I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around this. You know him, and seem to like him, so you know he knows what he's talking about. He's spent his entire career studying the ancient middle east. Yet it seems like you're saying, "Cline has studied this stuff, but I have my Bible and I know the Bible doesn't lie, so this academic must be bunk."
Academia certainly isn't immune to criticism, in fact differing ideas are welcomed, however, if you're criticizing Cline because he disagrees with the Bible... Seriously? I thought we stopped doing that in academic circles a long time ago.

Huh? I only took issue with his Sea Peoples hypothesis because it was based more on a hunch than actual academic proof, but at least he noted it as such unlike other academics.

[Darkstar]

Huh? I only took issue with his Sea Peoples hypothesis because it was based more on a hunch than actual academic proof, but at least he noted it as such unlike other academics.

Isn't god the biggest hunch of all?

[Polaris]

Huh? I only took issue with his Sea Peoples hypothesis because it was based more on a hunch than actual academic proof, but at least he noted it as such unlike other academics.

Isn't god the biggest hunch of all?

Much more evidence for God.

[Darkstar]

Isn't god the biggest hunch of all?

Much more evidence for God.

I'm not familiar with the sea people hypothesis in question, but I highly doubt it. To be honest, god is still a hypothesis. The idea that god exists was acepted as a conclusion for things like lightning and rainbows for many years. Now that we know better, it would be more logical to put forth a god hypothesis and perofrm tests to see whether or not he exists. Note that the test results must be reproducable and successfully done so in most other tests. However, most theists are content with their holy book, and god-of-the-gaps.

[Aroura]

I didn't read the whole thread so I'll just reply to the OP, but there is observable evidence for subatomic particles. They can shoot them at things, and they actually have observable results, for instance. Have you ever read about any of the research done at CERN? Those scientists aren't all just standing around theorizing, you know. They actually perform experiments using these particles. If they didn't exist, there could be no such physical experiments. I cannot imagine what they would be doing with the large hadron collider if subatomic particles were just a theory.

On the other hand, there are no observable results for any sort of god.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Isn't god the biggest hunch of all?

Much more evidence for God.

Yes, but it's invisible play pretend evidence much like food on Peter Pan.

[jonb]

I'm not familiar with the sea people hypothesis in question, but I highly doubt it.

What do you doubt about it?

[Darkstar]

I'm not familiar with the sea people hypothesis in question, but I highly doubt it.

What do you doubt about it?

Okay, I should have more clearly stated that there was 'more evidence for god', as the sentence was somewhat misleading. Or are you just being smart with me? (Well, better than being dumb)

[jonb]

Your right, just my usual smart arse type of thing.
love and kisses

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

Your right, just my usual smart arse type of thing.
love and kisses

Ahem, it's you're, not your.

I corrected a british person on their grammar! woooooo!