He by convention doesn’t mean male in this case, so that’s a real nitpick. Want to actually respond? You certainly appear to have a blind spot with regard to the application of scientific principles about anything.
And many ways to prove the existence of fairies, for those who want to believe.
Please, the current forum is not the proper venue for this sort of unprovoked ad rapam attack.
You got it completely wrong, I´m affraid; I´m talking about proving things to your color blind people, the ones that already can see color don´t need any proof for it.
I think it would be more truthful to say’millions of people" believe they have experienced God",that doesn’t prove they experienced anything but their own inner feelings, they had an experience they called God. It was more out of desire than fact.
Monavis
Not everything, just where they are inappropriate.
That depends on how many people have personal experience with fairies.
You are right, I wrote that very late. Those that are color blind will never accept any proof of color.
Yes, and that’s exactly what the color-blind people said about color. But the people who could see color did see color, real color, and real God.
I see, so to hell with logic and reasons, you say that people won´t accept proof and that´s the end of it.
We can´t see ultraviaolet light, yet we know most (all?) insects see it, we know and believe that because there´s scientific proof based on the study of insect eyes.
How come we accept that proof if we are ultraviolet light blind?
Skeptics will not accept any proof of God no matter how good it is, but they will accept personal experience of God when they have it.
I grow tired of this excuse not to provide any evidence-not proof, because no one is asking for that, but evidence-of your god’s existence.
“The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is opened.”
I think you should follow your own advice, being open minded doesn´t mean accepting what you already believe in or agree with, but entertaining the notion that you may be wrong.
You simply state that skeptics won´t accept evidence, real testable evidence; you are wrong. If tomorrow the Giza piramid broke loose of its foundations and levitated 50 meters over the desert, and the stars aligned saying:
"How´s that?
God"
are you saying that people like me would refuse to see it at all, wouldn´t accept that as evidence?
Until you actually come forth with an open mind and consider that your prejudices against religious skeptics may be wrong, arguing with you its pointless.
There’s never been any proof of God(s), so of course skeptics don’t accept that which they are never presented with. And no one has ever “experienced God” either, since there is no such thing.
And God is such a silly idea, that I can’t imagine what would qualify as proof anyway. Almost anything is more likely than God as an explanation for something, including the possibility that I’m drugged or insane.
Yes, and there has never been any proof of color to those who are color-blind. But to those who can see, there is color and God.
Could you please look up the definitions of “proof” and “evidence” and indicate that you know the difference? You have been given the evidence that can be shown to color-blind people as to the existence of color-can you show us the evidence as to the existence of your god?
My apologies! I meant to say dumb as a parsnip of course.
*Frantically searches user names for “parsnip” *
Why is the study of the impact of god on the world inappropriate for science?
Clearly some people thought they did, or we wouldn’t have the concept of fairy, right? Ditto for much of the other old supernatural entities - not counting those we can trace to recent fiction.
Can science measure God, quantify or catalog God? That is science, I think what you are talking about is history, or perhaps humanities. If science can prove God exists then it would be a proper subject for science.