Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Brett answers this week’s challenge, “Prove God by the scientific method.”
The scientific method cannot prove science…I guess this means we shouldn’t believe in science now? Hmmm… sounds to me like he is just taking science in faith….LOL
Knowledge cannot be proven through knowledge, both are circular arguments. The rather amusing part to all of this is that we have all subconsciously come to terms with this. Atheists take their view in faith just as much as theists do. Since all knowledge must be taken on faith. Furthermore, in a broader sense reality must be taken in faith. The evidence we find in reality must be believed in first–in order to be dealt with.
Interesting turn of events.
I am not saying knowledge cannot be known. I take it in faith that it can. This faith in knowledge has not lead me astray or you astray either. This is a very good video after all:) I believe things can be knowable, I just do not know why they are–as a proof and this is just perfect. This is where the faith in knowledge comes in. I can, however, give evidence that can show a certain answer to be more likely correct than incorrect. Let me attempt this now…:
If knowledge must be taken on faith before we can use it, this shows us many things about where we live. It shows that to an extent everyone walks by faith. Now the question is: “What are we having faith in?” Did knowledge come from chance? Knowledge–one of the most obvious yet overlooked phenomena that we know is a thought! As far as I have seen it can be nothing else. If I call knowledge an “anomaly by chance” I am forced to come to the conclusion that the concept of an “anomaly by chance” is a thought in and of itself. The evidence for the existance of God is blatingly obvious. Denying God’s existance is like denying Mr. Kunkle’s existence in the video. Of course I can identify Mr. Kunkle empirically…but I can detect God through his thoughts–which I can gather through knowledge. Yes, there is faith involved, I however am also taking faith that Mr. Kunkle’s Potential Evil Twin brother is not pretending he is Mr. Kunkle. I don’t mind accepting some things at face value. It Stands to Reason that the argument from sight for Mr. Kunkle’s existance is just as powerful an argument as the argument from “knowledge” for God’s existance.
In all seriousness to you Mr. Kunkle. No one denies your existance because well we can see you. But “knowedge” as a “thought” for God’s existance… while it cannot be seen, I think it fosters just as powerful an argument as sight itself when one thinks about it. And also people have no qualms believing in you because your human. Believing in God means they have someone else to answer too…God has been right under our noses the entire time–
Man cannot comprehend the brain in his own head, or its vastness, but there is no God? that is silly…
You failed that challenge. I can prove God exists, and you did not come close.