You're 100% correct, but no one can understand that

[ben---neb]

Therefore they look for 'evidence' against God and they find it because they want to find it.

Oh, the irony.

Scientists 'invent' things like physics?
You're trying to bring arguments to convince us that God exists.
Your argument however, is: 'Because he wrote the bible, indirectly'.
Why does God exist? 'Because everything the bible says is true'.
Why is the bible true? 'Because God made it'.
Why did he make it? 'Because God wanted to'.
Why did he want to make it? 'Because he is God and he wanted to'.
Why is he God? 'Dude, read the Bible, it's what he wrote so it must be true'.

The conclusion leads back to one of the premises, there is no connection at all to a real source. Hence you're stuck in an internal logical construction that cannot be false in its own universe, but it can never be proven properly outside of it.
Your religion may make sense to itself, but for scientists, who tend to be more sceptical, it simply isn't enough; so they'd rather try to explain things without having to fall back on 'because x said so' reasoning.

I'm a nihilist, but if God's existence (and powers) have been proven, I've no choice but to believe in him: his existence has been proven. But I'm not one to just boldly believe in stories and supernatural phenomena that have happened ages ago, because a book from that time says so.

Actually my belief in the existance of God stems from outside the Bible. Indeed, my belief in God was 'given' to me by God or rather as everyone knows there is a God I merely stopped denying the obvious. What I gain from the Bible is an understand of God's character or at least what He has choosen to reveal to us.

And the argument 'because God says so' works because, well, it's God - you know, divine, all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, holy, perfect, good, all that stuff.

And correction, some scientists are more skepitcal and some see no conflict between Christianity and science. Scientist are men after all, always going to be bias either against God or for God and interputt the universe in the way they want to. It's why I never debate the creation of the universe via creationist science or evolutionary science, I argue God instead.

To conclude: read the title of this thread. That is how I feel nearly all the time. But that too was predicted in the Bible so I figure it's perfectly normal.

 

[irrelevantnugget]

And the argument 'because God says so' works because, well, it's God - you know, divine, all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, holy, perfect, good, all that stuff.

/snip

To conclude: read the title of this thread. That is how I feel nearly all the time. But that too was predicted in the Bible so I figure it's perfectly normal.

I'm not sure anymore, but... you're just trolling, right? RIGHT? Please someone tell me this guy is just trolling us, big time.

 

[ben---neb]

And the argument 'because God says so' works because, well, it's God - you know, divine, all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, holy, perfect, good, all that stuff.

/snip

To conclude: read the title of this thread. That is how I feel nearly all the time. But that too was predicted in the Bible so I figure it's perfectly normal.

I'm not sure anymore, but... you're just trolling, right? RIGHT? Please someone tell me this guy is just trolling us, big time.

I believe everything I wrote if that's what you mean. Here take a look at more of my ramblings: www.notatthedinnertable.weebly.com

 

[Deleted]

I told this guy that a certain actress played in a movie and he didn't believe me, it ended up with us going to the movie to see the scene and when I proved him wrong we left right then haha.

 

[cynicalandbored]

I had a MASSIVE argument about whether the Hague or Amsterdam was capital of the Netherlands. Nobody would agree with me that it was Amsterdam, despite the fact that I phoned my Dutch friend and asked her. She agreed with me, but apparently Irish people know the Netherlands better than people from there...

 

[MurderousToaster]

For more information, please see every argument an intelligent person has ever had on YouTube.

 

[Godavari]

Recently I was debating the validity of the Bible with a gilr in my class, though I won't get into who was on what side. I ended up basically winning, then she started using relativism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist] against me, saying "what's true for you isn't true for me."

I argued that the entire basis of ethics, scientific advancement, and philosophy depended on there being objective, absolute truths. But she refused to budge. I couldn't covince her, and it made me rage.

 

[Godavari]

That [i/]Physalia Physalis[/i] is not a jellyfish.

Spoiler: If you wondering, it looks like this:

[img/]http://pamiejane.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/portuguese-man-o-war.jpg[/img]
There, the Portugese Man O' War.

I do believe it's a bunch of parasites held together with hatred and the tears of small children.

I'm not a maths-sy person, but a friend taught me how to use algebra to prove that 1=2. I'll edit the post to include it later, but no-one would be believe me. Even when I wrote the proof down.


a=1 b=1

a=b

a[sup]2[/sup]=ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab=2ab

a[sup]2[/sup]+ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

ab-a[sup]2[/sup]=2ab-2a[sup]2[/sup]

1(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])=2(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])

1=2

I don't know if this has been replied to yet, but I'll destroy it just for fun.

The error lies in the transition from "1(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])=2(ab-a[sup]2[/sup])" to "1=2". If we assume that a=b=1, then the first eqation can be written like this:

1(1(1)-1[sup]2[/sup])=2(1(1)-1[sup]2[/sup])

When we simplify it...

1(1-1)=2(1-1)

1(0)=2(0)

then you get...

0=0

You cannot logically go from 1(0)=2(0) to 1=2. Zero mutiplied by anything equals zero.

 

[seamusotorain]

I don't know if this has been replied to yet, but I'll destroy it just for fun.

I bet you go into kindergarten and knock down the Lego towers....alas, I have been shown who is the boss.