"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places ... "Many centuries have passed since then, as our Lord said these words, and none of these centuries had passed without war, disease, famine and earthquakes. The mighty empire turned to dust, the disease carried off half of humanity, thousands of people died in the cataclysm of nature - from floods, fires and hurricanes. This happened again and again in the course of these centuries, but never made Christ's return to Earth.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Yes, but remember, all that is written must happen first and also God is giving time before horrible "End Time" events so whoever could be saved will be saved before it will happen.
"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. “Where is the promise of His coming?” they will ask. “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.”… 2 Peter 3:3
First: I had to reply here because ALL of the other cases you responded to me you replied as the last entry in the nesting limit so it would let me reply there.
I haven't said anything about evidence. I've simply stated that science cannot be used to prove or disprove it. Writings in a book, and eye witness accounts are not sufficient data for the scientific method. You have to be able to replicate, experiment, etc for science to prove anything. It is a tool, it is not a belief system. In this case everything that is needed to use science to PROVE (or disprove) christ, God, etc is not there. It cannot be used to answer this question with what we have.
Yet, I haven't said a word about evidence that I recall. You may have decided to THINK of that word as you read something I wrote, but I haven't said that.
I have said Credible Witness does not matter to Science. Credible is subjective. Who gets to decide that person is Credible? Oh, yes right another human. Are not humans fallible, even the credible witness. Yet let's say what the witness said was 100% true. Science still couldn't use that because it couldn't test it, experiment with the data, and replicate it. So if there was a witness and it is true, the scientific method can't really rely on that. All that credible witness really does when it comes to a scientist is to EXCITE them into trying to find a way to prove it/disprove it. If they follow the scientific method it removes bias, yet even many "so-called" scientists (especially lately as its the only way they can get their state funding) do not practice it right all the time. They approach it with bias to produce the results they expect to receive to keep their funding going.
Yes. I agree that this has nothing to do with Science and am not trying to say there is a scientific way to know anything about the Unobservable. Science must recuse itself from having an opinion on the matter. However, humans are not constrained to only knowing what science can discover.
I agree with you completely here. In fact this was essentially ALL I was saying from the beginning, but I did get derailed by people firing off other things at me, that I didn't say.
Initially I did not attack religions at all in my posts. Simply explained why Science really couldn't be used here.