Anyways, if scientific evidence could disprove the existence of God then it would convince me...
I'd say that is why god doesn't heal amputee make a pretty convincing case that God, at least the just and caring and omnipotent God of the christian, is proven not to exist. Basic argument is that he wouldn't let clearly innocent people suffer if he is what the bible claim he is.
Newton didn't find about color because of an intimate personal feeling of presence in its head. He had scientific experiments, for exemple with glass prism, that could be show to, and then repeated, by other people.
You could demonstrate that what you said was true using prisms and such but your couldnÔÇÖt really convince anyone at this point that your ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ was any better then any other ÔÇ£theorysÔÇØ at the time.
What other theories? I didn't know they had other theory to explain separation of white into rainbow in human's time. And if they had different theory, then the best is:
- The one that's simplest, explaining the most phenomenom with the fewest rules.
- The one that predict otherwise unexpected effect, which are then later found.
While "because God did it" is a very simple explanation that can account for any phenomenom, it's pretty useless theory since you can't predict anything with it. Also, "God did it" is not a scientific theory cause it cannot be refuted (=disproven, aka falsified in metascience language). Whatever the result of whatever experience, you can justify any result with "God wills it, and don't you dare question his motive". You cannot go anywhere with such way of thinking.
"bacteria to human evolutionism"
You had a bad education. Bacteria do not necessarly lead to human.
But I would claim that an Atheist** would take the stance that any evidence presented to support the existence of God is just ÔÇ£not yet explained by scienceÔÇØ my stance is more scientific.
I don't even know of any god-supporting fact "not yet explained by science". I mean, the stuff still mysterious to science is like dark matter in the universe, which is too far away from religious people worldview for them to ponder.
Now if you knew something to be true (light is a particles)
I doubt any people here had first hand experience of how light is particle. Maybe very contrived experiment they read in a text book, but sadly physic like that progressed too much to still be followed by random man from the street. Which allow religious people to operate a confusion between "the corpus of knownledge gathered so far by science", and the "scientific method by which they were acquired". One can be revised, can be proven false. The other is a method, that can even be used to great effect in everyday life, and doesn't force you to adhere any preset of belief. Oh, and you can very well have conflicting scientific theory, as long as they apply in separate fields. Typically, "light" (in the broad sense of electro-magnetic radiation), behave like single particles for high frequency, and like waves for low frequency. Inventing experiment where two theories would yield different results is what doing science is all about.
ThatÔÇÖs because that when God created the Universe he knew that you would someday make that prayer and as such set the Universe in the way it was going such that your prayer would be answered when the time came.
So... God basically sit in his throne out in space, doing nothing?
How much do you believe in the Bible, Sinbad? Did Mose part the sea? Did Jesus ressurect lazarus? Did God create the first human from dust, or did he program fish to eventually become human? Because IIRC, bible is almost entirely filled with account of God directly meddling in human affair to miraculously save people who believe in him. And you did say:
My (or SwiftSpearÔÇÖs) ÔÇ£theoryÔÇØ that the Christian God (as described in the Holy Bible) does exist... we know it to be True
ItÔÇÖs probably not something that should happen.
God knows (he's omniscient), God can (he's omnipotent), God wills (he's love), yet God does not.
The wonder is that your instinctive beliefs in superior authority so easily suppress questions normally raised by such strong internal contradiction.
C'mon! I can understand God has his reason to not save everybody, but we should at least see a measurable statiscal correlation between miraculous recovery and being a good christian. Or else .... God is statistically inexistent!
CanÔÇÖt see any evidence of Prayer making a difference? ThatÔÇÖs because that when God created the Universe he knew that you would someday make that prayer and as such set the Universe in the way it was going such that your prayer would be answered when the time came.
That could explain why we don't have visible direct godly intervention (in total contradiction with the whole bible). But that would still not explain while prayer don't have any measurable effect*. If God had set us the universe so that prayer would be answered when the time came, well, prayer would still be answered more than lack of prayer.
* Beside what you get by forcing people to regularly think about a topic. I mean, sure, if you pray for your mother, she'll go better than if you don't, only because praying for her makes you think about her, and remind you to tend for her needs. People who have no one to pray for them, have no one to help them in times of need, so aren't doing as well. This work without resorting to magical explanation.
ALSO: @AF: Your idea of the beliefs I hold are Laughable... I skipped right over angry and went to LOLing... come on man! PLEASE don't confuse me with the kind of Christian who would say that the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse us and would refuse to believe something empirically proven SOLELY on the basis that it conflicted with a classical interpretation of the bible and 16th century dogma... it makes you sound stupid.
Can you present us the "Flood Geology" you mentionned earlier as a concing point, that's supposed to allow Christian-Creationist to disregard all fossil evidence?
