Creationism: The Proof!
- Thread starter Adam
- Start date
No! I'm the messiah! 
ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!
I AM THE MESSIAH!
N O T Y O U!!!
SO THERE!
I'M THE MESSIAH!
GO AWAY!!!
GO GET YOUR OWN... WHATEVER TO SAVE!!!
I SAVED MANKIND FROM SIN, NOT YOU!!!
ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!
I AM THE MESSIAH!
N O T Y O U!!!
SO THERE!
I'M THE MESSIAH!
GO AWAY!!!
GO GET YOUR OWN... WHATEVER TO SAVE!!!
I SAVED MANKIND FROM SIN, NOT YOU!!!
Last edited:
The proof is in the pudding
OK. Let's take your premise as correct. Then the old adage is true that the simple act of observing something changes that thing, and the only proof of change would be what you see (the nature of proof). Equipment error is just an excuse for not believing what has probably changed, I totally agree with you on that.
I have a good example. Patience exists (I hope you agree with me on that at least). To prove you have patience, it has to be tested (we are being scientific about this). Someone tests your patience by making you wait. If you think it's a silly exercise and you choose not to play the waiting game, you don't have patience, and it doesn't exist to you. The only way patience can exist is by *having* it, i.e. practising it.
If I claim God gives new meaning to my life, and I start to live as if it has, then yes, I have changed, but only because someone observes it. If you become a tree in the middle of a wood and no-one is there to see it, have you really become a tree? An atheist chooses to avoid the proof by not believing in it. So no-one can really prove anything. I believe in atheists, but I don't see their lives becoming less futile or more convincing. They don't believe in God, but they can still see me change. Ironic, I think that I believe but see no change, and someone else doesn't believe but does see a change.
OK. Let's take your premise as correct. Then the old adage is true that the simple act of observing something changes that thing, and the only proof of change would be what you see (the nature of proof). Equipment error is just an excuse for not believing what has probably changed, I totally agree with you on that.
I have a good example. Patience exists (I hope you agree with me on that at least). To prove you have patience, it has to be tested (we are being scientific about this). Someone tests your patience by making you wait. If you think it's a silly exercise and you choose not to play the waiting game, you don't have patience, and it doesn't exist to you. The only way patience can exist is by *having* it, i.e. practising it.
If I claim God gives new meaning to my life, and I start to live as if it has, then yes, I have changed, but only because someone observes it. If you become a tree in the middle of a wood and no-one is there to see it, have you really become a tree? An atheist chooses to avoid the proof by not believing in it. So no-one can really prove anything. I believe in atheists, but I don't see their lives becoming less futile or more convincing. They don't believe in God, but they can still see me change. Ironic, I think that I believe but see no change, and someone else doesn't believe but does see a change.