Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not listening to who? The Earth? I listen to the ONE who created the Earth.Sad that your not listening to her.
lol, all those years of study are no match for a plain old dictionary. I can just imagine him now, slapping his forehead and saying, "Now why didn't I think of that?"So what? He went to "school" and made up a bunch of theories and got a piece of paper to show it. I prefer the simplicity of the dictionary thanks. Just like I prefer the simplicity of the bible. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but he likes to make things simple for us.
Ah yes, what a great debate tactic. Tell others to do your homework for you.Why should I? You're the one wanting proof. Go look into it yourself
The mechanism that creates mountains is well understood, and there is no need to invoke a mind for any part of it. Your claim that only minds are capable of creating does not seem to be correct.
I have never claimed that science and religion are in conflict.
But the thing is this...
Every physicist in the world will agree with all the others on what the speed of light is. Every rocket scientist in the world will agree that if you send off a rocket at such a speed with the engines burning for this long, it will go in that particular direction. Every mathematician will agree that one number raised to the power of some other number will have this particular result.
But when you get people who specialize in religion, they all say different things. priest, a rabbi, an imam, they all say the evidence clearly points towards their own faith and away from all the others. How can this be true? They obviously can't all be right, at least some of them have to be wrong. And if some of them are wrong, how do we determine which ones? We can't just say, "The one that agrees with my faith is right and all the others are wrong," since if we do that, a Muslim will conclude that Islam is correct, a Jew will conclude that Judaism is correct, and a Christian will conclude that Christianity is correct. And we're right back where we started.
So we need some way to test and verify the claims. This works for all the other fields. When the physicist makes a claim about the speed of light, then that can be verified and checked. And every single time, the verification works. Everyone always gets the same answer. This is what we would expect if something is actually real. And the same thing happens with the rocket scientist. They can claim that the rocket will go in a particular direction, and other people can run their own calculations and see if they get the same result. And they can also just wait to see where the rocket actually goes. That's the important thing - if something is actually real, then everyone who investigates it should get the same results. If different people get different results for the speed of light, for example, then you know someone's messed up somewhere. And it's only by investigating it that we'll find out where the mistake is.
But we can't do this at all when it comes to religion. Religion makes pretty much no testable claims. The idea of God is unfalsifiable. No matter what results you get, there's always some way to explain it that's consistent with your own personal beliefs. Can you imagine if we did that with other things? How could the rocket scientist figure out how long the rocket engine needs to burn for in order to get into orbit around the moon if the results for one person said it needs to burn for five minutes, and the results for the other person said it needs to burn for a whole day?
So I'm not saying that only science is valid. I'm saying that the only valid way to get accurate information about anything is by going with what can be tested and verified. And if it always gives inconsistent results, then we can't say it's valid at all.
Gail A Riplinger shows how the Bible has a built-in dictionary.So what? He went to "school" and made up a bunch of theories and got a piece of paper to show it. I prefer the simplicity of the dictionary thanks. Just like I prefer the simplicity of the bible. God is all-powerful and all-knowing, but he likes to make things simple for us.
The same philosophy was used by the guy who made the video I linked to in post 284, and he has a PHD in religious studies, and he literally wrote his thesis on this topic as part of his Doctorate of Philosophy. You can see that thesis HERE and download it for free.
Actually, gene duplication can lead to an increase in genetic information. A gene can be duplicated, and then it can change over many generations to develop a new function, thus adding to the amount of genetic information. This site goes into more detail. How Does New Genetic Information Evolve? Part 2: Gene Duplications • Stated ClearlyQuite correct. That is why we are talking about creating new information. DNA code is information. The presupposition that abiogenesis is what is responsible for the creation of life is strictly unscientific. There's not a stitch of scientific evidence for abiogenesis, but it is the accepted scientific model because of methodological naturalism, which is due to secularism.
Hindu is a polytheistic religion. And even between the monotheistic religions, there are differences which leave them contradictory to each other. Simply saying, "Yes, but they all believe in just one God," is not sufficient, just as you could get physicists who all agree that light has a fixed speed, but if they all disagree on what that fixed speed is, you still can't assume they have it correct.Fair enough, but you say:
It's not that reductionistic. All theists believe in a singular God. So they all have that in common. It would be like you saying "phycisists say one thing and rocket scientists say something else" because they are different disciplines. And you still haven't delt with how you are supposed to know anything. You can't know anything except your particular field of study and would be completely ignorant on everything else. And that's not true at all. You know you exist. You know other minds exist. Why couldn't there be an ultimate mind? Remember, we are talking about Intelligent Design, which claims no one religion. So you can't equate all these different religions to Intelligent Design because ID is a scientific endeavor that claims no one religion. Yes, I mentioned different religions, but only in the context of theism.
But if it can't be tested and verified, how can we even claim that the supernatural exists?This is a bias against the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be repeated. You can't do a lab test for it since it isn't predicated on repeated actions. I'd be happy to discuss how we can know the supernatural exists (which is evidence for God, BTW). I have examples I can draw from my own life as well as various literature that demonstrate the supernatural is real. In fact, atheist, which only makes up 7% of the population are the ones claiming the supernatural doesn't exist. Anthony Flew, who was a Hume expert, even he came around to believe in God because the EVIDENCE was too much for him to deny.
The issue is that when a physicist starts talking about God, they are not in their area of expertise anymore. If a person who is an expert in a particular field starts talking about a different field, then their viewpoint on that second field is just as informed as that of a layperson, which is to say, not very informed at all. I'm well qualified when it comes to music, but that doesn't mean my opinions about some non-musical field are reliable. Likewise, someone can be very well qualified when it comes to physics, but that doesn't mean that their religious views are correct.Again, you seem to be talking out of two sides of your mouth. You seem to believe in scientism, but when I tell you, physicists who are deists because they know physics can't explain anything and you say, "So what?" you defeat your own argument.
Actually, we understand NDEs better than you think. And the phenomena that people report are easily explainable by what we know of how the mind works. There are even Buddhist meditators who can give themselves NDEs at will.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6244634/A claim does not need to be testable (repeatable) to be true. What do you say to NDEs and all sorts of supernatural experiences people throughout history have claimed? Are they ALL delusional? You would have to say they are ALL mistaken since their experience isn't repeatable. But virtually every society experiences supernatural things. So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the supernatural doesn't exist.
How is it false? I never said that science has a monopoly on testing and verification. ANY method is valid, be it science or something else, as long as it can provide something that can be verified.Clearly false and you are contradicting yourself in this very paragraph.
What resources did you provide? You just made the claim that it was Dawkins' philosophy, and made the unsupported judgement claim that it was terrible. You never provided any resource to back up that claim.If you are not willing to look at our resources, why should we look at yours?
Bet he used that "plain old dictionary" as a study guide to come up with his own definitions. Seems you did too.lol, all those years of study are no match for a plain old dictionary.
He still put a lot more effort into it than you, who just decides to stop as soon as you get something that agrees with what you've already decided is true.Bet he used that "plain old dictionary" as a study guide to come up with his own definitions. Seems you did too.
Actually, gene duplication can lead to an increase in genetic information. A gene can be duplicated, and then it can change over many generations to develop a new function, thus adding to the amount of genetic information. This site goes into more detail. How Does New Genetic Information Evolve? Part 2: Gene Duplications • Stated Clearly
Hindu is a polytheistic religion. And even between the monotheistic religions, there are differences which leave them contradictory to each other. Simply saying, "Yes, but they all believe in just one God," is not sufficient, just as you could get physicists who all agree that light has a fixed speed, but if they all disagree on what that fixed speed is, you still can't assume they have it correct.
But if it can't be tested and verified, how can we even claim that the supernatural exists?
The issue is that when a physicist starts talking about God, they are not in their area of expertise anymore. If a person who is an expert in a particular field starts talking about a different field, then their viewpoint on that second field is just as informed as that of a layperson, which is to say, not very informed at all. I'm well qualified when it comes to music, but that doesn't mean my opinions about some non-musical field are reliable. Likewise, someone can be very well qualified when it comes to physics, but that doesn't mean that their religious views are correct.
Actually, we understand NDEs better than you think. And the phenomena that people report are easily explainable by what we know of how the mind works. There are even Buddhist meditators who can give themselves NDEs at will.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6244634/
How is it false? I never said that science has a monopoly on testing and verification. ANY method is valid, be it science or something else, as long as it can provide something that can be verified.
What resources did you provide? You just made the claim that it was Dawkins' philosophy, and made the unsupported judgement claim that it was terrible. You never provided any resource to back up that claim.
Look at the thread title and context of the OP. Was I suggesting a debate about the existence of God with an atheist? No, I was suggesting that God created everything, and the scriptures indicate he never stopped.Ah yes, what a great debate tactic. Tell others to do your homework for you.
Read the scriptures below and watch the video before responding. (Discussion only).
What a superfluous redundancy (). This is a discussion forum, what else was expected?
I've tried this with her before she won't have a bar of it.This is a bias against the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be repeated. You can't do a lab test for it since it isn't predicated on repeated actions. I'd be happy to discuss how we can know the supernatural exists (which is evidence for God, BTW).
lol Weinberg isn't providing support for God as he's an atheist. He was just calculating what the vacuum energy of our universe should be and is just pointing out the the facts. Your objection is a fallacy itself as the additional assumption that because we are here in this universe must prove that this universe was meant to be and there was no alternatives is a fallacy of a wrong analogy.Your Weinberg is simply stating the nonsensical.
"If things weren't the way they were, the universe would be different"
Among other things the Fine-Tuning fallacy assumes, with absolutely no evidence, that things could have been different. In fact, since things are the way they are we can be 100% certain that things couldn't have been different.
He's also making the mistake of making the implicit assumption that life itself is proof of God without offering any evidence.
You might also like to look up 'The Gunfighter Fallacy'.
OB
Exactly.So the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the supernatural doesn't exist.
I was very clear, my issue is with you.
So God is unfalsifiable.
There's no reason to accept anything if it is unfalsifiable.
Oh, I wonder who's done this before?He still put a lot more effort into it than you, who just decides to stop as soon as you get something that agrees with what you've already decided is true.
The One Created the Earth with His own hands and and signed it with His signature. It's well worth listening to what the Earth has to say as it is God speaking to us through His own Creation in how He Creates.Not listening to who? The Earth? I listen to the ONE who created the Earth.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?