Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[gipsy]

Really?

I disagree with 5% of science, and therefore I should go live in a cave?

Then you should perhaps change your "title" to "5% OF SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE"

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you should perhaps change your "title" to "5% OF SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE"

No, any science can take a hike; but only as necessary.

Like when Jesus walked on water, when science predicted He would sink, or when when Jesus resurrected, when science calculated He would stay in the tomb.

My pastor says that when the rapture occurs with a shout, that shout is going to be a command for science to "stand aside."

 

[gipsy]

No, any science can take a hike; but only as necessary.

Like when Jesus walked on water, when science predicted He would sink, or when when Jesus resurrected, when science calculated He would stay in the tomb.

So you're saying all of sience can take a hide, but only 5% of it

Somehow this sounds like:
"9 of 10 persons don't know about percentage calulation, this would then be 75%"

My pastor says that when the rapture occurs with a shout, that shout is going to be a command for science to "stand aside."

Same problem here, he's about 100% right and about 100% wrong this would then be 200% ... seems you have some problems with percentages

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, if I say 'no' to 'those who do control them', I'll be saying 'no' to penicillin.

Your quote was:

"Saying 'no' to science is tantamount to 'living as savages'?"

Penicillin is science. Say no to science, say no to everything we've achieved through it. Or rather, take penicillin, and you're agreeing with all the science that went into it (which nowadays is an awful lot, especially when you consider alternatives like erythromycin).

As it happens, I'm allergic to penicillin. That's irony for you.

In any event, I don't say 'no' to either those who do control them, or to science itself.

I agree. You only disagree with that which contradicts your religion. Otherwise, you have no quarrel with it. Am I right?

Instead, I employ what I call "boolean standards" to accommodate what agrees with Scripture, and what doesn't.

In other words, I can reconcile the two.

You don't reconcile the two, you give the Bible pride of place at the expense of any and all opposition. A curious position, to be sure.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you're saying all of sience can take a hide, but only 5% of it

Talk about the Telephone Game.

I said any science (not all of science) can take a hike as necessary.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you're saying all of sience can take a hide, but only 5% of it

Somehow this sounds like:
"9 of 10 persons don't know about percentage calulation, this would then be 75%"



Same problem here, he's about 100% right and about 100% wrong this would then be 200% ... seems you have some problems with percentages

I think he means that any part of science is susceptible to taking a hike, but only about 5% is actual force-marched through open country.

 

[gipsy]

You don't reconcile the two, you give the Bible pride of place at the expense of any and all opposition. A curious position, to be sure.

No considering boolean logic he's 200% correct:
science OR bible
this reconciles the two perfectly, as long as he's not using XOR ... which we use in normal speaking ...

 

[sandwiches]

It's a bit hard to test history. You either believe the Bible's historical portions or you don't. And as far as the whole "God did it" is concerned, science will never tell us what, who, or why.

This is a myth I see perpetuated by even some atheists. That science only tells us the 'how' but not the 'why.' What does this even mean? I mean science tells us or at least attempts to tell us a lot of 'why's.

Why do humans breath? Why do animals appear the way they do? Why are planets the shape they are? Why do atoms bond the way they do?

Same for who or what.

If science can't tell you, then you have to find the answers somewhere else.

But it can. Not all answers, of course, as some are don't have an objective, verifiable answer such as: What's the meaning of life?

It's a little bit odd that many credulous atheists would agree that science can't prove or deny the existence of God, then turn around and demand scientific proof.

Most atheists, like myself, don't claim to know a god doesn't exist. Personally I am an agnostic atheist. I DON'T KNOW that a god or gods don't exist but I BELIEVE they don't because I have no reason to believe otherwise. So, if you make the claim that you KNOW a god does exist, it's on you to provide the supporting evidence.

Sort of signifies some inner inconsistencies on their part. I believe the creation is evidence, more properly in the sense of a court case, with each person as the sole juror.

Take care.

Well, that's definitely your prerogative to believe as you wish, but you should also accept that there's no verifiable evidence independent of belief for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

As it happens, I'm allergic to penicillin. That's irony for you.

You want irony?

How about those who say 'no' to God, while breathing His air?

Should I use the same language and tell them not to use a computer, but "get your own computer ex nihilo"?

I agree. You only disagree with that which contradicts your religion. Otherwise, you have no quarrel with it. Am I right?

What's the British equivalent of "right on"?

You are "spot on".

You don't reconcile the two, you give the Bible pride of place at the expense of any and all opposition. A curious position, to be sure.

What do you do with the "opposition"?

If science disagrees with the Bible, who gets the "pride of place" with you?

 

[gipsy]

I think he means that any part of science is susceptible to taking a hike, but only about 5% is actual force-marched through open country.

In that case he should change it to "5% OF SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIDE, THE REST IS ON PROBATION"

 

[sandwiches]

You want irony?

How about those who say 'no' to God, while breathing His air?

Should I use the same language and tell them not to use a computer, but "get your own computer ex nihilo"?

There's nothing to independently indicate it's your god's air.

What's the British equivalent of "right on"?

You are "spot on".What do you do with the "opposition"?

If science disagrees with the Bible, who gets the "pride of place" with you?

Reality trumps all. Period.

 

[AV1611VET]

In that case he should change it to "5% OF SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIDE, THE REST IS ON PROBATION"

Better yet, I'll just leave it stand as written.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's nothing to independently indicate it's your god's air.

Good --- then you can't falsify it.

If you could, then He isn't God.

Reality trumps all. Period.

Reality can (and will) take a hike.

 

[gipsy]

Better yet, I'll just leave it stand as written.

Of course your entitled to do whatever you like within the strange rules of CF, but don't you think it borders lying to on the one hand say "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE" and on the other hand "I (only) disagree with 5% of science" ??? one of the statements has to be wrong, even according to your boolean logic
Even "god did it" can't help you here

 

[3sigma]

Isn't that what you're asking for?

No. I’m asking you to provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all. I would expect that sound, objective evidence would be used in the process rather than the storybook nonsense you propose. By way of analogy, suppose I told you a wizard cast a spell to cause something and you challenged me to prove it. Would you accept quotes from Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as evidence my claim was true? Perhaps someone like you would…

 

[3sigma]

It's a bit hard to test history.

Can you provide a single instance where “God did it” has ever been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all?

And as far as the whole "God did it" is concerned, science will never tell us what, who, or why.

Clearly, Christians are incapable of this, given the total failure of any here to provide a single instance where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.

I believe the creation is evidence, more properly in the sense of a court case, with each person as the sole juror.

In court cases, jurors should come to conclusions based sound, objective evidence presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an event occurred. There is no sound, objective evidence that your God created anything or that it even exists. Of course, human nature being what it is, some credulous jurors come to faulty conclusions based on intuition and feelings, wrongfully convicting innocent people. I suppose you could be likened to one of those credulous jurors.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course your entitled to do whatever you like within the strange rules of CF, but don't you think it borders lying to on the one hand say "SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE" and on the other hand "I (only) disagree with 5% of science" ??? one of the statements has to be wrong, even according to your boolean logic
Even "god did it" can't help you here

When Jesus wanted to walk on water, science stood aside and let Him.

If I wanted to walk on water, that same science is not going to stand aside fore me.

In addition, if there was a tornado bearing down on us right now, or if someone was on their deathbed, I would be praying and asking God to tell science to take a hike.

Besides, I think we got mixed-up somehow.

That 5% I'm talking about is where I disagree with science --- period; like macroevolution, deep time and the Big Bang.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. I’m asking you to provide a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.

That can't be done, in my opinion. Science is too myopic.

I would expect that sound, objective evidence would be used in the process rather than the storybook nonsense you propose. By way of analogy, suppose I told you a wizard cast a spell to cause something and you challenged me to prove it. Would you accept quotes from Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone as evidence my claim was true? Perhaps someone like you would…

And what would that "someone like me" accept it on?

Would he "just accept it", or would he, like me, accept it based on some pretty hefty observations.

To name a few:

1. Is time divided between BR and AR (Before Rowling and After Rowling)?
2. Does this book make predictions, then fulfill them with 100% accuracy?
3. Is this book JKR's diary?
4. Is this book sold in the non-fiction aisle at the local bookstore?
5. Is the greatest nation on earth currently founded on this book?
6. Did JKR's only begotten son die for the sins of the whole world?
7. Does this book contain a "great commission"?
8. Does this book attract unbelievers to it, more than any other book?
9. Does this book generate followers who are part of a 'called out assembly' who meet once a week to worship its author?
10. Where two or more believers in JKR are gathered together, is JKR in their midst?

No --- for someone to be "like us" --- they'd better do more than just read a book.

 

[3sigma]

That can't be done, in my opinion. Science is too myopic.

It can’t be done at all, irrespective of science. Can you or any other Christians here show us a single instance, ever, where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all regardless of whether science is involved or not?

And what would that "someone like me" accept it on?

Would he "just accept it", or would he, like me, accept it based on some pretty hefty observations.

Someone like you could base acceptance of nonsense on any one or more of a number of things such as ignorance, credulity, insecurity or incompetence. Your list of “hefty observations” is based on a combination of those faults.

 

[MoonLancer]

The Rapture, MoonLancer, the Rapture.

The Battle of Armageddon - rapturechrist.com/armageddon.htm
;p