Did Nothing Create Everything?
- Thread starter SetiAlpha6
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Big red herring there.
This is not about God. This is about evidence for the Exodus - and science can certainly speak to that.
Agreed. Similarly, anyone absolute claim that the Exodus happened in the manner described by the Bible is not based in science, only belief. It is a mistake to try to twist science to support your personal religious biases.
I agree with that.
My hypothesis never made an absolute claim like that. And that is why I always ask that people evaluate the evidence for themselves and reach their own conclusions.
Science is a wonderful tool. But Science can only be used to help evaluate evidence from a natural process point of view.
It cannot prove or rule out the supernatural.
It is of course, limited in scope and understanding to the natural by the limited methods and philosophy behind it.
It assumes that the supernatural does not exist, without proof. In the absence of such proof perhaps it would be wise to be skeptical of that claim.
Last edited:
Nope.
Science assumes that the supernatural does not exist because there is no evidence for it.
Quite.
I see it as a type of circular and self-fulfilling reasoning.
It creates a method of evaluation which is incapable of detecting the supernatural and then decides that the supernatural does not exist.
That is circular reasoning on steroids.
Last edited:
A skeptical approach to everything is useless because it can be used to deny absolutely everything, including skepticism itself.
It can never be met or satisfied.
A skeptic can come up with any number of reasons not to believe in anything.
All it takes is a creative mind.
Alone, it is a pathway to infinite ignorance.
And ignorance of a thing can never disprove that thing.
It can never be met or satisfied.
A skeptic can come up with any number of reasons not to believe in anything.
All it takes is a creative mind.
Alone, it is a pathway to infinite ignorance.
And ignorance of a thing can never disprove that thing.
And, here you are trying to prove the Exodus and the existence of God with science. You've just admitted that everything those so-called scientists are doing is based entirely on belief or faith, not science. We knew that already, but now you know it, too.
As well, you can't prove a negative, in other words, science can't prove God doesn't exists, science isn't trying to prove God doesn't exist. It is you who must prove God exists to the rest of us, the burden of proof is on those making the positive claim. I'll use your own words and simply leave one word out.
"Any absolute claim that God does exist is certainly not Science. It is only belief or faith."
Unfortunately for you, this pretty much destroys your argument here.
We also assume there are no fairies living on the bottom of garden ponds, simply because there is no evidence. The assumption is not a positive claim, fairies living on the bottom of garden ponds would be a positive claim, just like the existence of the supernatural. Again, it is those who make the positive claim who have the burden of proof, that would be you who has to prove the supernatural exists. And, but your own admission, you state science can't help with that. So, what is your plan to prove the existence of the supernatural?
Sorry, but skepticism is not about denying, it is about having doubts and questioning. Denying is denying. It also is not about coming up with reasons not to believe something, it's about having doubts for things that have no evidence that other people believe. You believe in God and the supernatural, but there is no evidence for either, hence we are skeptical to your claims. Being skeptical doesn't mean we don't deny your claims or come up with reasons not to believe, we are merely waiting for you to provide the evidence so that we may agree with you. If we deny your claims, we'll then just deny them.
I have only tried to present evidence for the hypothesis below. I never claimed I could provide absolute proof.
This is how I previously stated the hypothesis...
“HYPOTHESIS –
That the Jabal al Lawz mountain range in Saudi Arabia is the best candidate for the Biblical Mt Sinai.
DISCLAIMER:
I do not wish to take credit for any of the evidence in the posts that follow.
I made none of the discoveries myself.
Please review the evidence if you wish, and decide for yourself.
To date, the scientific study of this complex site has barely even scratched the surface.
Dr. Glen A Fritz has done an exhaustive, Geographical Analysis of this Site and of the other Sites related to it.
However, in my opinion, more research still needs to be done to validate the Hypothesis conclusively.”
How would you state the Hypothesis better, how would you improve it?
This is how I previously stated the hypothesis...
“HYPOTHESIS –
That the Jabal al Lawz mountain range in Saudi Arabia is the best candidate for the Biblical Mt Sinai.
DISCLAIMER:
I do not wish to take credit for any of the evidence in the posts that follow.
I made none of the discoveries myself.
Please review the evidence if you wish, and decide for yourself.
To date, the scientific study of this complex site has barely even scratched the surface.
Dr. Glen A Fritz has done an exhaustive, Geographical Analysis of this Site and of the other Sites related to it.
However, in my opinion, more research still needs to be done to validate the Hypothesis conclusively.”
How would you state the Hypothesis better, how would you improve it?
Not at all. We have a collective conception of "reality" which is a close approximation to objectivity. A skeptic doesn't refuse to believe in something unless he sees it himself; he declines to believe in something unless other people can see it. That's why one of the most common phrases is, "Did you see that?" We don't trust our own perceptions and our own analyses. At a very basic level, we need confirmation.
I am not so sure. I see people going beyond your description of skepticism all the time.
Seems like people can take skepticism as far as they want to without any boundaries at all.
Last edited:
You can't improve it because the very hypothesis itself contradicts the very thing YOU just admitted, that science has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God. Your hypothesis is faith based, it is your belief. It has nothing to do with science.
Unfortunately, your opinions on skepticism and science are specious at best considering you don't seem to understand either one of them. You have already proven that.
Belief is not evidence based. If it was evidence based, it would be science.
Or perhaps it could be both, faith and evidence based. Which is what Christianity has always claimed to be.
That it is faith, based on the written historical record. Written by real people, in real places, who had real encounters with God.
Christianity has never been otherwise.
That's a huge question that would require huge answers. I can only suggest you read up on the principles of science and research practices. That alone is a lot to take in.
Then you should learn to think.
And here you're assuming (on zero evidence) that the "supernatural" exists.
Quite. Again.
Allegedly had encounters...