Quote from stu:
Aapex you are all over the place. It's simple really. Because something isn't proven not to exist, does not therefore mean it must exist. Can you really not understand that? Because God is not scientifically proven not to exist , does not mean God exists.
Of course I accept you cannot prove the existence of God and I am not wanting to prove the non-existence of God. Why should I?
I have no difficulty in recognizing the limits of science, although I do see science making progress on stuff not yet understood, as it always has. I do not see religion doing anything similar.
I do not agree you have anything worth calling evidence for God's existence.
And once again I am not trying to prove there is no God. To do so would be like trying to prove there are no leprechauns. It is pointless trying to prove anything fanciful like God or Leprechauns donât exist.
Because you see no evidence for apemen, aliens from outerspace or leprechauns, does not mean they don't exist. By your own argument as you say, you cannot prove God exists, so just how could you prove leprechauns don't .
Science has served humanity well. Through it we have discovered countless natural laws of universe and use that knowledge to make our lives easier in every area of our existence. But to limit a theist's proofs to the confines of what the atheist determines is one sided. To a Christian, there are experiences that science and logic cannot explain and these experiences are real. The atheist needs to recognize that we have experiences that are life changing. No mere psychological set of theories explains the changes in our lives. So please, don't mock them. Can science nail down all that exists in mind, body, and soul? No. Can it quantify the beauty of a sunset, the cooing of a baby, or the love of a man and a woman? Science and logic have served us well, but they are not the ultimate truth to all things.
Of course, that does not mean we ignore science. In fact, we use it in our proofs for God. But to limit the playing field to your set of rules is an unfair way to start. It is mostly an attempt to initiate control and keep command of the conversation by setting the ground rules according to your criteria.