1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

  2. Please check out our two newest forums, the "Buy, Sell or Trade" (link ) forum in the Society Category, and the "Conspiracy Theories" (link) forum in our Discussion and Debate Category.

The Science of Science; or, the true Scientology

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Wiccan_Child, Aug 18, 2012.

Can science study the supernatural (et al)?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. No, by the definition of 'science'.

  4. No, by the definition of 'supernatural'.

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SavedByChrist94

    SavedByChrist94 Newbie

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    It was caused by a burst of light from the body, that is a Scientific Fact.
     
  2. Elendur

    Elendur Gamer and mathematician

    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Engaged
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    What is the definition of "fact" to you? It's obviously not the same as the one I'm using.

    You proclaim victory because you think it'll sway those who hasn't read the 'exchange'.

    I'm afraid you're not faring much better now. Calm down and argue rationally.

    Here's some facts for you:
    You did not "win".
    I'm not trying to "sucker" you (whatever that means).
    You haven't used any science in your arguments.

    Lucky me I'm not an atheist then.
    You did not end it though.

    My previous post wasn't an attempt to argue against you, you would have noticed if you had read it properly.
    I was trying to inform you of your lacking debating skills (including your behavior) and of an error you had committed.

    This is an example of your inexperience in debating. Mistaking a lack of response as a win. You might expect the same reasoning from a child.

    Calm down and debate rationally.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  3. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    Messages:
    19,631
    Likes Received:
    8
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Faith:
    Atheist
    No.

    That A has never been compared with B doesn't mean one is automatically superior to the other. You're confusing 'never beaten' with 'lost to'.

    And this proves the Bible is true? If I slander the Qu'ran, will you start going to a Mosque? That you honestly believe this is a valid argument is why your posts are of insufficient calibre to bother refuting. Pearls, swine, etc.

    You think you did, and you're incapable of seeing your error. This mental block of yours is one of the reasons I don't bother refuting your posts any more.

    See (3).

    See (3).

    Indeed.
     
    Blackwater Babe likes this.
  4. Blackwater Babe

    Blackwater Babe New Member

    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    0
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Catholic
    What do you mean its a "scientific fact"? On what are you basing this claim?

    And assuming, for the sake of argument, you are correct, how is it a scientific fact that the body in question was Jesus' as you earlier claimed?
     
  5. SavedByChrist94

    SavedByChrist94 Newbie

    Messages:
    797
    Likes Received:
    1
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
     
  6. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    Messages:
    19,631
    Likes Received:
    8
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Politics:
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Faith:
    Atheist
    You're mistaken. That I won't prove those things to you doesn't prove that you aren't those things. You're committing the fallacy fallacy.

    The latter is the only outcome of our exchanges - eventually, smacking one's head into a brick wall becomes boring. If you think that proves your claims true, that once more underlines the insufficiency of your posts.

    You mentioned I slandered the Bible because you genuinely think that proves your point. Ironically, it merely proves mine.

    Your dichotomy is false. If it happens that I don't post a refutation - perhaps I die by a freak meteor accident before I finish writing - that doesn't prove you right. Again, you're invoking the fallacy fallacy. Again, you're confusing apathy with inability.
     
  7. Elendur

    Elendur Gamer and mathematician

    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Engaged
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Knowledge or information based on real occurrences. That's my definition of facts. So no, it's not "opinion".
    Could you explain how the interpretation, that the shroud was created by a flash of UV light, is a fact?

    You provided with few facts and no irrefutable proofs.
    Would you like to hear the explanation of why you shouldn't talk about proofs and proving when talking about the real world?

    Your frantic repeating of proclaiming wins, for one. Then you have a clear aggressive tone to what you're writing.

    1. I don't prove things outside of mathematics.
    2. I will support the points if you'd like, except for the last one. It's tedious work to quote all posts you've written in order to support one point, which would be needed to support that point.
    3. I take it that the verb "sucker" is illustrated in this link?
    sucker - Idioms - by the Free Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

    I'm biased, sure, however I dare say I'm less biased than you.

    Indeed, I am insecure about many things about myself, however that's not the reason I posted my response.
    There are many reasons to why one might respond to your posts, I responded because I thought that you might improve your technique.

    It doesn't prove anything. It might indicate several things though. One of them is that the person in question have better things to do that to argue with you. Another interpretation might be that he/she is sick of you.

    See the link provided in the bottom of my post.

    If You Can’t Prove Me Wrong, then I Must be Right
     
  8. twob4me

    twob4me Congregational Category Supervisor Staff Member Supervisor Supporter Staff on LOA

    Messages:
    45,123
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Female
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Christian
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This thread has generated some reports and staff has decided to close the thread permanently for violation of the Flame rule.

    Documentation of thread closure is HERE for staff only.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...