Hawkins

How do you know that God is inaccessible to us? The Bible says that He keeps contacting His witnesses, such that they can write a book called Bible for other to believe with faith. Love is about perception, it is quite a personal feeling. You don't do empircal scienfic research of love, do you? So how do you know that others won't perceive love from God? Moreover, there are roughly 1/3 humans beings believe in Jesus and I do think that the majority of them might feel His love. Perhaps it is you who is an issue when you treat 1/3 humans as 'abnormal'. You need to admit that a human mind is limited. The problem may be in how you comprehended what is said in the Bible instead of a problem of the Christianity. Fairness is built on Law, faith in Jesus is a Grace. If you look for fairness, you need to go back to Law. Law is where the fairness is for everyone. Grace on the other hand, is like a gift. You can grant a gift to whoever you want. God made a sacrifice, while men get a gift for free. The Second Covenant brought us by Jesus Christ is a Grace/gift. He has all the right to grant it to whoever He likes. Yet it's fair enough that everyone who ever heard of the gospel can choose to get this gift. As for the ancient Chinese (or anyone who never heard of the gospel), just get back to His fair Law. 'the universe is so large that there must be aliens' <------ hope that you realize that this is a faith statement. If you assume to soon that they do exist, why not just try to ask them instead of us Christians? Love is relative to an object, and possibly there is a time frame there too. For example, when you say that you like apples, here apples are the object your liking is expressed. And I bet that you never like rotten apples with worms inside. So you like apples only before they turn rotten. Moreover, a tyrant to the wolves can be an extremely loving Shepherd to the sheep.

That's your faith without proof. Now the question is why do you think your faith/made-up shall be more legitimate than the 'Creation Myths'? :)

Even though this is a science forum, it surpised me that you didn't see the support. Evolution is not scientifically falsifyable Evoluiton doesn't bear predictability The above supports are already in my original post.

It makes perfect sense, as science doesn't work in the following 3 cases, 1. something existing but science is not advance enough to discover. For example, electrions in stone age. 2. something beyond this 3D spatial material world 3. something that is not existing. And in any of the above cases, you need faith to believe as sicence dosn't work.

Science and religion cannot reconcile because humans are too religious and are mistaken about what true science is. :evil: That's why they think evolution is science. They religiously accept something not falsifyable and bears no predictability to be their science.

Your basing of your faith on your research which is non-scientific i must say, is an act of hypnosis itself.

Science is futile for 2 reasons, science is futile in stone age about the existence electrons, it's because science it bound by time. Science is futile as science is the discovery of natural rules existing in our physcal world, which is 3D spatile sphere with some particles bound within, outside which science know nothing. It's believed soul exists while you are alive, you can't think without your soul. Your brain is a part taker in your thinking process. Can science refute what I said here, apparantly no.

That's your belief, believing in evidence. It's just another kind of religion, still the kind of belief says none about what the actual truth is. And here's the question for you, What happens after death, does soul exist? It's a question you have to answer within your life-time under the condition that no evidence is provided, whether your answer is a yes or no.

The stone age men told me that nothing exists outside their stone age science and the evidence gathered by their fellow stone age guys. I truly want to show them my iphone, mobile tv, telescope, and my other electronic devices though they believe that electrons never exist. But those equipment are not available at hand at that time. So I told them directly that they are atheists. :)

Sub-consciously, all religions are based on the following question, What happens after death, does soul exist? Religions are to explore this field as science is so futile about it.

On the other hand, I doubt whether you guys can understand simple things such as whether the following is scientific or not, Because something doesn't happen in the past such that it must not happen in the future You guys swallow this statement without even a slight question. How scientific you guys are. What a joke.

Prove it scientifically or it is out of your faith to believe so. Simple as that. What surprises me here is how those proclaimed to be scientific but living int their own dreams.

Of course, that's a lame excuss. I can explain more in details if you truly don't understand.

GOD - The creator of this world for you all to answer a single question, a religious question of which your science (Tree of Knowledge) is totally futile. And the question is, What will you be after your physical death?

???You are trying to extend the past into the future. It's not even scientific to say that because God is not usefuf in the past, such that God must not useful in the future. That remains a belief inside your belief system, based on past experience though. Again, science is an attempt to exclude the factor of God into the formula, or else, repeatedly testable, falsifyable and predictable rules, as the most characteristic features of science, are meaningless. Your conclusion about ID remains a valid argument towards ToE.

That remains your own opinions, try again. Science is never the only truth, you can't establish falsifiable tests efficiently for truth contained in, say, political rules and even economic rules. Moreover, ID is never an attempt to include God into the research, it just doesn't assume the 'political correct' that 'God must not be included'.

Science is to not to include God as a factor in scientific formula. So science may not apply in case something is truly created by God (by ignoring defined rules or by creating with rules we do not know). ID is thus more objective in that it doesn't need of fall into the 'polical correct' of excluding God. To simply put, science has to assume that God has no effect on the researching subject for things to be correct, while ID doesn't need to make that assumption. And the question here is, is science the only truth? If no, how to research those truth do not concern science at all, or rather out of the reach of science?

Hello, New to this forum, so greetings everyone!