And the majority of the planet is fine with otherwise :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
NK.[/QUOTE]
|
And the majority of the planet is fine with otherwise :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
NK.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think I see what you mean. Look out your window. All that you see just happened?? Talk about a fairy tale. If it is a childish notion to look at the mountains, the ocean, the stars and to conclude there IS a creator.. then so be it. You say I have childish notions... I say you are being foolish.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
By the way... I haven't met a grown adult who still believed in the tooth fairy or santa claus... I have met brilliant men and women that believed in a creator. It isn't childish at all. It is the beginning of wisdom.
I've never been one to go with the majority just because it's the majority - that whole 'thinking for yourself' thing y'know. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Good for you. I'm the same way; no kidding.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I'm not with the majority of the US (or the world, I might guess) on MANY issues.
I'm sure that if you and I were on my back porch having a nice beverage, we'd find we have much more in common than we disagree about :)
There is absolutely no doubt about that! I have friends of every belief (or lack of), the topic of religion rarely comes up. That pretty much in keeping with a plan to keep fanatics away from my inner circle in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
If you're ever in Ohio, let me know: I'll feed and lubricate you and we'll have a good time :)
I'll be flying over it in a week's time. I'll raise a drink box to you (yes it's a family vacation). :)
Order a Tomato Juice and I bet you could slip the stewardess a 10 spot to secretly slip you one of those little bottles of Vodka to help the juice ;)
From my perspective, an argument for special creation is just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
It all just appeared one day 6000 years ago. It all just happened.
That just seems like a fundamentally uninteresting proposition. I'm more interested in how and why things happened--mechanistically. For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions.
How and why did photosynthesis come into existence?
Why do humans have hands that can wrap around a ball shaped object, unlike other primates?
Why do sediments vary in thickness and composition?
If the answer to every question is the same (God did it), it's like being in an intellectual prison.
I think pride could be one factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Doctors used to present themselves as more godlike, which made doctors feel good, AND also contributed to the placebo effect, which is very effective. If your doctors knows all and says "you will get better," very often patients do.
But, as you say, the status of doctors has dropped a lot in the last few decades. I think many things have contributed to that, including an influx of women into the profession; patients' right and the movement toward putting the responsibility for medical decisions onto the patient (no matter how ignorant); the increasing role of insurers in dictating not only the number of patients seen in a day, but what they can prescribe, and what tests can be done; and of course the "evidence-based medicine" that results in strict guidelines, which comes from the work of the CDC and large clinical trials funded by the government. Doctors of 50 years ago were cowboys compared to today.
G&P[/QUOTE]
For whatever it's worth, I think it is also theologically stultifying. If theology is obliged to stop at the surface contours of the text, if no more probing question can be asked than "What does the Bible say?", any attempt at a deeper understanding of the Bible, or God, or of the spiritual life and its prospects and projects, is pre-empted before it can really begin. Theology is then limited to endless recapitulations of Biblical sound bites, quotes rolling off the tongue almost mechanically. This strikes me, at least, as a profound lack of respect, respect for--among other things--the integrity of sacred texts and the traditions that honor them.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
There is a tendency in some quarters to greet with a suspicious gaze the desire to plumb whatever depths may be plumbed. There is, I mean to say, a tendency for some to stifle theological, and not just scientific, inquiry if it appears to threaten to do anything other than to parrot the texts themselves. This not only breeds contempt for science and scientific inquiry; it breeds its own contempt for religion and for the humanistic drives and urges that make religion meaningful. I will put this problematically, or hypothetically, in deference to those here who don't believe that there are genuinely sacred texts: If a text is sacred, it isn't itself an object to be worshipped; it is an invitation to a conversation in which the questions don't stop while there is breath in the questioner. To suppose otherwise is to back into the notion that the text itself cannot withstand interrogation; it is to make of the text not the beginning of a conversation but the end of all conversation.
It is worthy of note that we have come to learn a great deal about the composition of the Bible, about the conflicts that raged within the earliest Christian communities, about the ways in which the Bible was itself produced and transmitted, and about the transformations it has undergone. It was not penned by God's own hand, of course, and its transmission and diffusion has been the work of many very deeply flawed human beings. We've come to learn a great deal more about this over the last hundred years. These have to be part of the conversation, not juest between Christianity and science, but between Christianity and itself.
Actually, other than the timeframe, that sounds like the explanation for the big bang. The difference is that the big bang omits God from the event, and assumes the all this complex design occurred by chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Personally, I find God very interesting!Quote:
That just seems like a fundamentally uninteresting proposition. I'm more interested in how and why things happened--mechanistically. For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions.
You are working on a computer. You would make no sense to say I would like to know how this computer (a complex design) came to be, but I don't want to know anything about how it was designed or manufactured. That is not scientific - good science does not start saying "I will accept any answer except the ones that I find boring".Quote:
How and why did photosynthesis come into existence?
Why do humans have hands that can wrap around a ball shaped object, unlike other primates?
Why do sediments vary in thickness and composition?
I don't about chance. But see my comments about the big bang earlier. To be frank, I'm fairly ignorant about the details of big bang theory, which may be one reason it doesn't compel my interest. But it's also because it has this "it just happened" aspect to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
But it would be really boring if I said "How does the computer work?" and you said, "IBM and Microsoft designed and built it." And if I asked any more questions, you got testy and said, "Microsoft works in mysterious ways. Do not question the CreatorTM." End of discussion. THAT's how religious explanations appear to me. There's no mechanism. There are certainly no design plans. No corporate history, no reason given for one design over another. Not so much as a patent application.Quote:
You are working on a computer. You would make no sense to say I would like to know how this computer (a complex design) came to be, but I don't want to know anything about how it was designed or manufactured. That is not scientific - good science does not start saying "I will accept any answer except the ones that I find boring".
I really like Akoue's last post. This makes so much sense to me.
Photosynthesis, the genetic code, human hands, vision, life on earth:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
For those that don't believe in God the answer to every question is nature or evolution or the big bang anything but the possibility of God.
Show me the proof that man and ape have the same ancestors:
You can't, because that cannot be reproduced, it can't be measured, it can't be observed.
Only ASSUMPTIONS can be made. You can't create an experiment to prove evolution because the process of coming up with an experiment requires INTELLIGENCE and forethought. Evolution is self -refuting.
That is not scientific.
G&P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
What you say, is can be said for the Darwin religion, the global warming religion.
No contrary oponion or evidence can be tolerated.
G&P
Why stop there? What about the gravity religion?Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
I think many of us would not take too seriously someone who denied gravitational force on the grounds that it is not mentioned in the Bible.
And if the gravity-denier produced as evidence photos of astronauts floating in the space shuttle while orbiting the earth, we still wouldn't take his denial of gravity seriously.
Why? Because it isn't *evidence* that there is no such thing as gravitational force.
The problem with contrary evidence that is proposed in order to expose the falsity of evolution is that it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.
I've seen people at ths very site propose an unusually warm summer or mild winter as *evidence* that there is no global warming. But, of course, it isn't *evidence* of any such thing.
You might think that evolutionary theory and global warming are bunk. You might think proponents of these views are fanatical in their defense. But even so, and even if you're right and they're all wrong, that doesn't make what they believe a religion. That would make it an ideology.
Neither can God's existence. So, by your own reasoning, that has no place in science either.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
This doesn't show that evolutionary theory is self-refuting. At most it would show it to be an empirically unverified hypothesis.Quote:
Only ASSUMPTIONS can be made. You can't create an experiment to prove evolution because the process of coming up with an experiment requires INTELLIGENCE and forethought. Evolution is self -refuting.
That is not scientific.
Moreover, while it is true that experimentation requires intelligence, evolutionary theory does not propose that evolution was or is an experiment. There's nothing "self-refuting" or contradictory about it. At worst, it's just false.
Of course, it isn't that either.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to understand and question things. Like how it all works, why it does. We were given brains for a reason and believing in a creator doesn't make someone stupid or in a intellectual prison. I believe you can have faith and also wan to understand photosynthesis... or why sediments vary in thickness. Having faith doesn't make people 'fundamentally uninteresting."Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I think it's important to stress that this is not what Big Bang theory says. It's very easy to think of the big bang happening and then moving forward in time from there, and you're right that it seems magical if you look at it from that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
But the whole point is that if we trace the evidence backwards, then at some point it must have all been at a singularity. It says nothing about the state of the universe before the singularity because that's as far as the evidence can lead us (at the moment).
It's the same with evolution, we trace life back and we find a point where life *just appeared*. It doesn't mean that it actually just appeared from nowhere, it just means we don't have the evidence or we need to look at the evidence in a different way. We need hypotheses so that we can make predictions and search for the evidence to show that it came about through a natural process. Same deal with the big bang.
Thanks for reminding me. I guess I should read about it again. I think it's the idea of a singularity that I don't get. I have heard this word used lately to argue that in the future all matter will become information. (And not far in the future, but soon, which I can't accept.) So this isn't personally helpful, but I get your point anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
In contrast, I know enough about cells to be able to envision a stepwise beginning for life. But that's what knowledge does. It gives you the tools to be able to imagine or conceptualize something amazing, which is sort of my point. If I understood the math behind big bang theory, I probably wouldn't find it so unimaginable. A lot of people think that knowledge is just about believing something or not, when understanding is needed for it to be more than just belief in one thing or another.
Evidence for it is also pretty sketchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
The big bang that I believe in is God said it, and "bang" it happened!
Some things are too far removed from our understanding. For example, if you took that same computer and put it in front of a young child and the child said tell me how you make a the computer chips - it would be beyond their ability to understand even the basics. The same is true, and even more so when we look at the understand of humans verses a being so powerful that he can speak things into being. You make think that he is boring, but I find Him anything but boring.Quote:
But it would be really boring if I said "How does the computer work?" and you said, "IBM and Microsoft designed and built it." And if I asked any more questions, you got testy and said, "Microsoft works in mysterious ways. Do not question the CreatorTM." End of discussion. THAT's how religious explanations appear to me. There's no mechanism. There are certainly no design plans. No corporate history, no reason given for one design over another. Not so much as a patent application.
But the point remains - to reject something because you find it boring is definitely not a scientific approach.
To refrain, I did not say that religious people were boring and I did not say that God was boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I said that using God to explain interesting questions about the real world is intellectually suffocating. It is an opinion. Opinions are not science. They are opinions, and that one is mine.
Yes you did - here is the quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
"For me, God isn't an interesting answer to any interesting questions." ( https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/religi...ml#post1558156 )
How exactly does this description vary from "boring"?
Gravity can be measured and observed. Can macro evolution be observed? Has it been observed?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Take one cell : genetic material, mitochondria or chloroplasts, ribosomes aminoacids ---these are the minimum and I'm allowing you that:
What research paper demonstrtates that this one cell becomes a reproducing mulitcellular organism?
That is one cell taken all the way to trillions of cells that we have?
What observable/ experimental evidence makes this plausible by evolution?
There is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for this. And that makes evolution science fiction.
It takes faith and because of that it is a religion.
There is more evidence in archaeology and in the lives of believers for Jesus Christ ;)
G&P
I find the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution to be utterly artificial and obfuscating. But yes, evolution can be observed.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Are you thinking that an inability to answer your question vitiates evolutionary theory? If so, you're making things far too easy for yourself.Quote:
Take one cell : genetic material, mitochondria or chloroplasts, ribosomes aminoacids ---these are the minimum and I'm allowing you that:
What research paper demonstrtates that this one cell becomes a reproducing mulitcellular organism?
That is one cell taken all the way to trillions of cells that we have?
What observable/ experimental evidence makes this plausible by evolution?
Tell me whether your inability to answer the following question vitiates Christianity: What was God doing before he created?
It would appear you and I have very different conceptions of faith.Quote:
There is NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE for this. And that makes evolution science fiction.
It takes faith and because of that it is a religion.
Well, there certainly isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of God. Is that what you are getting at? I certainly don't deny the existence of Jesus--or of God, for that matter.Quote:
There is more evidence in archaeology and in the lives of believers for Jesus Christ ;)
Micro-evolution ONLY.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
There is evidence for the existence of God. I have posted evidence on this board a number of times. And there is considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus and many of the key attributes and events during His time on earth, from Christian and from secular sources. Even from sources opposed to Christianity.Quote:
Well, there certainly isn't any archeological evidence for the existence of God. Is that what you are getting at? I certainly don't deny the existence of Jesus--or of God, for that matter.
But proof of macro-evolution? None.
As I say, I reject the distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. So if you want to hawk the fundamentalist line on this I'm probably not your best audience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Yes, as I say, there is evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ.Quote:
There is evidence for the existence of God. I have posted evidence on this board a number of times. And there is considerable evidence for the existence of Jesus and many of the key attributes and events during His time on earth, from Christian and from secular sources. Even from sources opposed to Christianity.
No, there is no evidence of God's existence in the sense of *evidence* that is relevant to science. God has no physical properties and so cannot figure in the physical sciences.
This is why macro-evolution is called a religion. Scientists acknowledge and have defined the line. There is a book out by a leading scientist on this very topic. And yet there are those who for religious reasons, as you have shown, reject this division. This the believe in evolution os species is in fact believe by faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
There is in fact evidence of God. You are typing on a computer. Do you believe that there is a designer of that computer? Have you anything of a physical nature related to that designer?Quote:
No, there is no evidence of God's existence in the sense of *evidence* that is relevant to science. God has no physical properties and so cannot figure in the physical sciences.
Nah, this is a line pushed by the Discovery Institute. If your "leading scientist" is Behe--as he was the last time this came up--you can keep him. The Discovery Institute is a crock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This is not evidence of God. In fact, if you take one more step you'll have committed a fallacy, so best to turn around and go back whence you came. You have a REALLY loose notion of what counts as evidence.Quote:
There is in fact evidence of God. You are typing on a computer. Do you believe that there is a designer of that computer? Have you anything of a physical nature related to that designer?
You seem to want to try inference to the best explanation. Here's an example of how that works: I have a cat. I put a dish of cat food on the floor. Time elapses. I look to see that the food is gone. I infer from this that the cat ate the food. And that's a reasonable inference. But it's not a slam-dunk, of course. Nevertheless, I'd probably be prepared to assign it a high probability of being true, say .7.
Now you seem to want to say we can infer the existence of an artificer from the observed fact that physical phenomena exhibit a certain order and complexity. Here's where you want to be really careful, because there are lots of ways of constructing an invalid argument on the strength of this "intuition".
Evidence is only evidence within an explanatory framework, and within the explanatory framework of the physical sciences, nothing can count as evidence for God's existence. This because God is not physical.
If you want an argument for God's existence that has a chance of being at all compelling, you're probably better off with an a priori argument (a la Anselm) than with an a posteriori argument. A posteriori arguments for God's existence (of the sort you tried to sell asking) are really hard to make work, and Aquinas did it way better than you. And I don't buy his versions of the argument (hint: I don't share his allergy to infinite regresses).
The Discovery Institute is one such scientific institute but there are many others. Again, science does not reject something out of hand simply because a person doesn't like it or agree with it. When you reject something in such a fashion, that is religion, not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Heh heh - I noticed that you dared not answer the question.Quote:
This is not evidence of God. In fact, if you take one more step you'll have committed a fallacy, so best to turn around and go back whence you came. You have a REALLY loose notion of what counts as evidence.
Then I guess, based upon your reasoning, that you don't think - because thoughts are not physical, you have no evidence that they exist.Quote:
Evidence is only evidence within an explanatory framework, and within the explanatory framework of the physical sciences, nothing can count as evidence for God's existence. This because God is not physical.
I find it interesting that the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, something never seen, is no problem for you. But when we discuss God, you reject out of hand even the idea that evidence can exist, though the evidence is overhwelming.
There isn't one person who designed any of our computers from the ground up. The tools and parts for making modern computers have accumulated over time from different sources. Nobody today could build a desktop computer without the previous invention of all sorts of new technologies and materials. It has been a stepwise accumulation of information, where things that didn't work were discarded and things that did were used again in the next iteration, with some new improvement here or there.
So do you deny that there are intelligent designers behind it, or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
If you want to stick up for the Discovery Institute knock yourself out. Not sure why you think I'm rejecting their work because I don't like it. I don't like it because it's shoddy. If you think it's the bees knees then by all means, have at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
That's right. I read it and began to quake with fear. "I dare not answer THAT question", I whispered to myself as I huddled in the corner of the room. "It could be my undoing."Quote:
heh heh - I noticed that you dared not answer the question.
Yes, computers have designers. From that it does not follow that the universe does. You see that right? That to infer from the fact that computers have designers to the claim that the universe has a designer would be fallacious. Sure you do.
Mental states are second-order functional properties and events which supervene on first-order physical properties and events. And, as anyone who's ever read Descartes's Meditations knows, I don't need evidence for having thoughts. I'm HAVING them. There is no inference involved unless I am ascribing mental states to others. In that case, I have a quite considerable evidentiary base.Quote:
Then I guess, based upon your reasoning, that you don't think - because thoughts are not physical, you have no evidence that they exist.
Do you think that second-order functional properties of first-order physical properties and systems are non-physical? Or are you making illicit assumptions?
As I have said several times now, in the sense of "evidence" that is relevant to the physical sciences, there is no evidence for God's existence. Are you confused about what it means to say that the physical sciences are PHYSICAL sciences? If not, why ask the question?Quote:
I find it interesting that the lack of evidence for macro-evolution, something never seen, is no problem for you. But when we discuss God, you reject out of hand even the idea that evidence can exist, though the evidence is overhwelming.
Again, I note that you ignore the fact that the Discovery Institute is one quality scientific Institute amongst many. I also note that you attack then without any basis for doing so. That is not scientific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Indeed.Quote:
That's right. I read it and began to quake with fear. "I dare not answer THAT question", I whispered to myself as I huddled in the corner of the room. "It could be my undoing."
So then why do you think that anyone designed your computer? Do you take it by faith?Quote:
Yes, computers have designers. From that it does not follow that the universe does.
I did not discuss mental states - I said "thoughts". Show me physical evidence of a thought. Prove to me that a thought is physical.Quote:
Mental states are second-order functional properties and events which supervene on first-order physical properties and events.
You are coming up with you own rules around evidence, contrary to what are used in science. And you are not using even your rules consistently.Quote:
As I have said several times now, in the sense of "evidence" that is relevant to the physical sciences, there is no evidence for God's existence. Are you confused about what it means to say that the physical sciences are PHYSICAL sciences? If not, why ask the question?
You mean to say that you assume I have no basis for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
BTW, are you familiar with the Dover case? What did you think about it?
Nope, it's a priori.Quote:
So then why do you think that anyone designed your computer? Do you take it by faith?
Tom, thoughts are mental states.Quote:
I did not discuss mental states - I said "thoughts". Show me physical evidence of a thought. Prove to me that a thought is physical.
Mental states (including thoughts, which are intentional mental states) are second-order functional properties of first-order physical properties. How do you understand the relation of second-order functional properties to first-order physical properties?
How do you figure?Quote:
You are coming up with you own rules around evidence, contrary to what are used in science. And you are not using even your rules consistently.
This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describe the Discovery Institute as a scientific organization.
I haven't read their website lately, but 10 years ago they were quite open about their purpose, which THEY STATED was to undermine belief in evolution. Probably they don't say this anymore.
It's unclear why Tom is so obsessed with computer design. Yes, they are manufactured by people and the designs are upgraded at regular intervals, just like those for cars and couches. Tom, will God upgrade you and create a new marketing plan for you?
You just wrote your thought down, thus transmuting your thought from an electrochemical state in your brain to a set of light and dark pixels on my screen in California. I can't think of anything more physical than that. It's actually very cool, which is why I'm glad I don't have to be told that it's the result of God's intervention, instead of my actually having some vague understanding of how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom
It's even cool to know that there is an entire group of mammals called the Afrotheria who have evolved to not have external testes, a state known as "testicond" and a big, big evolutionary step, since dangling the testes on the outside of the body is an unsafe place to keep them. But if God did that specially for elephants, hyraxes, and manatees, He has some curious preoccupations, and you have to wonder why He didn't provide the same upgrade for His personal favorites.
That is what I am saying - so far you have done nothing but reject anything scientific which fails to agree with you out of hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
You think that the courts are who determine what is and is not scientific? Do you think that the OJ Simpson case came to the right and logical conclusion based upon the evidence?Quote:
BTW, are you familiar with the Dover case? What did you think about it?
So you agree that cases exist where physical evidence is not required.Quote:
Nope, it's a priori.
You should check with a psychologist or psychiatrist. A mental state is a state of depression, a state of joy, etc. but is not a thought. You are making up definitions again.Quote:
Tom, thoughts are mental states.
Have you been following the discussion?Quote:
How do you figure?
Then maybe you have not been reading as widely as you should. And they are not the only scientists who oppose macro-evolution. The numbers are increasing, based entirely upon the scientific evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
How would you know this? Have you seen the person designing you computer. Have you seen the person building your computer? How do you know that there was a person behind it?Quote:
It's unclear why Tom is so obsessed with computer design. Yes, they are manufactured by people and the designs are upgraded at regular intervals, just like those for cars and couches.
I was upgraded by the fact that when I was saved, God's took away my sins.Quote:
Tom, will God upgrade you and create a new marketing plan for you?
Agreed - so there can be physical evidence of something which is not physical which proves that which is non-physical exists.Quote:
You just wrote your thought down, thus transmuting your thought from an electrochemical state in your brain to a set of light and dark pixels on my screen in California. I can't think of anything more physical than that.
Therefore, God need not be physical for there to be physical evidence of His existence.
What that is scientific have I rejected?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Geez, why so jumpy? I just wondered whether it got much press in Canada.Quote:
You think that the courts are who determine what is and is not scientific? Do you think that the OJ Simpson case came to the right and logical conclusion based upon the evidence?
In the physical sciences, physical evidence absolutely is required. In conceptual analysis, not so much.Quote:
So you agree that cases exist where physical evidence is not required.
Actually, no, Tom. The sense of "state" that you just used is not the relevant sense, since we are talking about thoughts. (Clinical psychologists use "state" one way, neuroscientists use it another way, and cognitive scientists in still another.)Quote:
You should check with a psychologist or psychiatrist. A mental state is a state of depression, a state of joy, etc. but is not a thought. You are making up definitions again.
The following are all examples of *types* of mental states in the relevant sense of "state": thoughts, beliefs, desires, perceptions (sensory states).
So, to be clear: Thoughts are second-order functional properties or events which supervene on first-order physical properties or events. How do you understand this relation between second-order functional properties or events and their first-order supervenience bases?
We've been through this. When I ask you to name practicing biologists who don't subscribe to theory of evolution or to provide evidence in support of an alternative scientific theory that explains all the facts, you change the subject. There are no such scientists. And "numbers" of what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Last summer I was dating the person who invented the first laptop computer.Quote:
How do you know that there was a person behind it?
Will God go on a date with me?
Good answer!Quote:
I was upgraded by the fact that when I was saved, God's took away my sins.
But He gave me a different upgrade.
Akoue is the expert in this area, not me. But I haven't seen any physical evidence of God's existence. Anything you can point to can be explained more easily by ordinary events. I thought the whole point of God was to have faith without looking for proof or demanding miracles...Quote:
Therefore, God need not be physical for there to be physical evidence of His existence.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:46 PM. |