Hello Basilides 
My reviewing notes will be made in lieu of your entire read. I hope you find this review helpful and enjoyable.
Name:
Is there Scientific Proof of God?
Material:
Science and Supernatural - Static item.
My own thoughts:
I don't believe this is a done deal, science is constantly making new discoveries and is slowly creating grounds to dispute the idea of creatinism. One day, God may be proved or disproved. Science is constantly evolving in many every field, and once in a while a discovery is made that requires new insight. The Supernatural world is enormous as its need to be scrutinized continues to be demanded.
Nature is continually bombarded by science in every element and "cause and effect" are normally brought down to the actions of every molecule. While science disects the atom, man may discover the truth as each piece may be identified and finally unlock the mechanizm that drives this universe.
In relation to the unnatural manner of our thinking about ourselves as we do, it really is natural because we are the only beings on Earth who hold the ability of reason. If we were to refer to the Bible, all things alive away from Adam are his to do with as he wished.
Unfortunately this testament has led to unfathomable horrors to the animal world, we allow the torture of so many lives in the search of science and the proof of a God.
So much for us being such a great creature of thought. While we painfully destroy lives who may not be able to rationalise, we are also destroying our world in the same process.
You have provided a delightful read, one with many questions and such material could produce many debates for decades to come. At certain points, you seem to assertain your thoughts as fact, these could produce plenty more debates.
Overall this was an excellent read.
Comments and thoughts:
You referred to your friend as atheist, yet the story is based on science and supernatural, I wonder if your friend would be truly atheist? Perhaps this person holds no religious belief and this would place this person away from the atheist perception.
First paragraph:
Reviewing notes and thoughts:
During a conversation with an atheist friend of mine, he said something like this: No need to to end the sentence as you had, the quotation you provided for the speaking part was nearly proper.
"You say 'God' exists. Yet to date not one shred of scientific evidence proves your claim. If God is present everywhere - as you say - then science ought to be able to find some evidence of Him." Quotation marks placed to begin and end the spoken lines are quite good enough, the word God does not require exceptional marking as the word is capitalized for the being.
To many, my friend’s critique presentsPast tense to the recalling of this instance-hence "presented". an insurmountable obstacle to rationally defending the theistic position. The adverb "defending" should lose the "ing" and keep the act of this meaning to the simple tense of the verb. It nearly sounded like you wanted to imply a constant battle of defending the belief of God, if so then the sentence would need to be reworded. To many, my friend's critique presented the insurmountable obstacle of rationally defending, his unbelieving position.
Second paragraph:
Think of his argument, then, in the following form: Only one comma is required here. The pause you seek is sufficient with the comma provided for the adverb-"following".
A. If God exists, then it must be possible to prove His existence by means of theUnnecessary spacing. scientific method.
Third paragraph:
The first presupposition is that anything that exists must be empirically measurable.Your process of thought will change here, a new line would be required.
The implication that follows from the presumption that empirical proofs can be true is that human reason can produce genuine insights into the way things really are, and not only absurd guesses at existence from a purely subjective standpoint.This being the last note in the paragraph ends the thought properly following the break I mentioned.
Third paragraph:
Since Nature is governed by certain rules which themselves are governed by the underlying principle of ‘cause and effect’, we observe her behaving in an orderly fashion.* The star is not necessary. A note to consider, if God is so real then why is nature involved and why do you allow nature to have seperate rules? I believe if your point were to made you may not want a seperation of two realms when it is suggested God created all beings on Earth. By reading onward I discovered this was an intentional allowance relating to the Naturalist, therefore a new line would be needed for this new thought. As you can see, without the new line, I presumed you were continuing with the God-ish sense and caused me to assume you were contradicting yourself. Always create a new line when a new thought will emerge.
Fourth paragraph:
The Supernaturalist, on the other hand,The comma following Supernaturalist is not necessary. You seek a pause following "hand" only.
As such, it is necessarily unobservable by our own Nature on Nature’s own terms: namely, the scientific method. This proved a difficult read by any term relating to religion. The preceeding sentence leading to this thought measures in "multidemensionalism", not with any reflection to other forms of nature.
Fifth paragraph:
ButComma if ‘God’ were empirically proven,..........
"...gGod isn't a scientific phenomenon, and hence cannot be evaluated using scientific methods."**The stars are not necessary and by using them especially in this manner you are stating yourself as the sole source for this argument. While trying to sound sympathetic to your beliefs, I don't think any one person may claim to have an absolute against any argument such as this magnitude, many arguments remain and of course I have my own.
Sixth paragraph
Suppose you claimedComma-adverb "ending" that ending a sentence in a preposition is grammatically incorrect.
ButComma suppose you claimed that my grandmother never ate chicken and cheese puffs together.
ButComma you would be silly to try to prove your assertion grammatically.
Tenth paragraph:
ButComma the presupposition rests upon the further presupposition – or rather it implies – that human reason..........
ButComma if Naturalism is true (namely, that there is no supernatural nor is there a supernatural God)Spacing , and the interlocking system of cause-and -effectSpacing is responsible.........
He had no choiceComma but to come to that conclusion - the movement of atoms.........
Eleventh paragraph:
Nor can anything my reason may produce would be true...........
Thirteenth paragraph:
.............,but then again thinking itselfSpacing is one of the least natural things you can do.
..........not by the performance of a series of experiments in controlled conditions, but by our confidence in the validity of science itself.Spacing "Can science prove the existence of God?"
A very in depth form of thought, nicely done.
imagine.
** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
|
|
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
