Evidence for God from Science

Then if there is no "who", then how do we address a person or other being? I was answering at the cosmological level of "who" as a higher being. At the terrestrial level then you are perfectly correct. You absolutely sure we exist as how we perceive it? No, merely that we exist. I think our percept...

Turns out he has it for real. I'm working on it. I see it as a thing of God for me to do this. He put an odd determination in me to see this through. Maybe I'll have to do some healing in him if God so gives me the faith for it. Here's a link he gave me I think you guys would like: http://www.albin...

Thanks for the response Jbuza, which I have read carefully. I'm wondering if this is a convenient place to conclude our discussion. We have both stated our opinions and are both beginning to repeat our points, I feel (nothing wrong with that per se but it may lead to mutual frustation if it continue...

I think the point that Blob wants to make is that we cannot look at a quote in isolation and determine the validity of the speakers position, that is called quote-mining. Yes I was having a dig at the non-scholarly practice of quote mining, rather than at Behe himself. Firstly, unlike the original ...

Hello Thinker. Apologies for the delay in replying. Why must there be a "who"? There needn't be. Why must there be a "what"? Because we exist. Why must there be a "where"? Because space exists. Why must there be a "when"? Because time exists. Why must there be a "why"? There needn't be. Why must the...

This attitude that says that the only thing that one can scientifically theorize about origins is evolution is fascist, controlling and definitely not science. Other scientific explanations of the diversity of life would be welcome. However even the most sophisticated formatting of creationism, i.e...

Hello ken. The truth is it takes much more BLIND FAITH to believe in the fairytale of evolution than it does to believe in the Creator God. You put evolution down by labelling it "blind faith" and presumably consider "blind faith" to be a bad thing. You also imply that your own beliefs require "blin...

Thanks Blob. I know that could be the only thing. I realize that I could sound smug, but I assure you that statement did not come out of smugness. I don't have the answers nothing of this comes from myself. I believe I know where the answers lie, that's all. I am sure of my beleifs, and agree that ...

erzeon wrote:So does anyone know what the religion is called where you believe in a God but not necessarily the exact one contained in the bible? Just some greater being.

Monotheism.

Fair enough, spacecase.

Whilst I disagree with Jbuza's point of view I don't think he deserves being accused of having an attitude problem. Similarly I can't see where he has cut and pasted, other than perhaps his list of 5 arguments - but these he openly and fairly presented as "the ideas of creationists" and offered "to ...

Hello Jbuza. I conclude creationism itself is not science from the lack of self-criticism in the history of creationism. Again what is the difficulty? ... No I will concede that there are some interpretations of observations that pose problems for creation, and creation has answered them (including ...

Thank you for speaking to me like I'm a human being again, Thinker. Now, tell me, the Bible IS difficult, yet it has survived THOUSANDS of years and HAS NOT been "shut down", why then would it be false? If longevity of religious text is the way to determine the true religion perhaps I should become ...

Perhaps I'm looking for something... or someone. For that matter being in a Christian in a Christian universe would be preferable to being an atheist in a godless universe Source . Sorry my presence irritates you. If it's any consolation I will suffer terribly and endlessly for my "foolishness" shou...

It's no good getting upset with me. Behe said it.