It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: jon1
a reply to: SuperFrog
So what you are saying is that you have never been to where these things happen, never done any real research won't believe what others say yet You deny that there is any chance that maybe there is a god...
By the way, Jesus would not heal if he was being put to the test..That fact is in the bible..
Healing is just part of a spirit filled christians life...No photo's, no videos and no glory to us....
Are you implying that it is my fault for never being there???
Firstly, outside of bible we don't have single piece of evidence Jesus ever existed, not to mention his healing capability...
Just reminder - extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, which you failed to present here...
originally posted by: jon1
a reply to: SuperFrog
OK superfrog, you win.
I bet i'm not the first christian that has given up on you...
You ask us questions and we advise you on the way forward but like i say, that chair is so comfy...
Did you ever google healing miracles..I doubt it because you may read things that don't fit in with your agenda which is to disprove God at all costs...
originally posted by: jon1
Such a shame because i bet you are a nice guy when not having fun with christians...
Anyway, you have a good life and no doubt i will see you again on here.. Lets hope it's on a subject that we both agree on though..
cheers..
By the way i watched the video that you recommended but this is by a person that does not know God.
If he did he would know the answers to all of his own questions...
In a nutshell, it is man who does these evil things and not God..but i explained this earlier...
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
My main point is that because there ARE those few intellectually dishonest individuals, however few and far between they may be, it makes any scientific branch, theory, or conclusion, which is not necessarily testable by Joe Schmoe, that much more difficult to believe.
Well...How do I know if Dr. Babadook is telling the truth or not? I don't have a lab readily available to verify his findings....so what do I do? Most ordinary people would simply take his word for it and that's a slippery slope to tread...
Now, granted, the more scientists that back up Dr. Babadook, the more credible he becomes...however, I am not easily persuaded.
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs
Not exactly.
People of faith will tell you they have had their faith tested and proven true. In a way since all these people come to the same conclusion...that is the same degree of validation as scientific peer review.
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs
Not exactly.
People of faith will tell you they have had their faith tested and proven true. In a way since all these people come to the same conclusion...that is the same degree of validation as scientific peer review.
originally posted by: Barcs
No it's not. Scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results that anybody who reviews can check for themselves. The results must be verifiable and repeatable. They don't just blindly take their word for it. With your example, there is nothing to verify. HUGE difference. Joe blow says he saw god. How do we verify he is not lying? If this is testable and repeatable then I should be able to do what he did and see god as well.
originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
originally posted by: Barcs
No it's not. Scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results that anybody who reviews can check for themselves. The results must be verifiable and repeatable. They don't just blindly take their word for it. With your example, there is nothing to verify. HUGE difference. Joe blow says he saw god. How do we verify he is not lying? If this is testable and repeatable then I should be able to do what he did and see god as well.
So you say scientific peer review requires tangible verifiable results...but yet you quoted the source earlier which had a peer reviewed article from Science magazine concerning the sun's corona...which was only a theoretical explanation of how the corona COULD PERHAPS become hotter than the surface...how is that verifiable? How is that tangible? It's not...it's speculative at best...and definitely not verifiable...
A2D