Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

I used a photograph enhanced to bring out areas of equal brightness, which is the same thing you did to imply a physical connection of two objects.

The two objects are said to be a billion light years apart. Is your house that big?

Let's say everyone just suddenly saw the light (so to speak) and accepted that Plasma Cosmology was the best description of the real world. What then?

Unemployment.

 

[sandwiches]

The two objects are said to be a billion light years apart. Is your house that big?

Are you saying that halos do not interact in a similar manner when they're light years away?

 

[Doveaman]

If you study book(s) and the world around you and then come to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity may have created everything, that's a scientific hypothesis.

And if we studied book(s) and the world around us and then came to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity did create everything, would it be a scientific fact.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

Yep. Pretty much everything in our society is derived from science. Say no to science, say goodbye to food, medicine, infrastructure, etc.

 

[Doveaman]

Are you saying that halos do not interact in a similar manner when they're light years away?

I am saying the two light bulbs do not demonstrate anything about the two objects that are said to be a billion light years apart.

And they certainly say nothing about these using the Scientific Method:

 

[Doveaman]

Yep. Pretty much everything in our society is derived from science. Say no to science, say goodbye to food, medicine, infrastructure, etc.

What about manna?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep. Pretty much everything in our society is derived from science. Say no to science, say goodbye to food, medicine, infrastructure, etc.

Why? Do I control food, medicine, the infrastructure through science?

Are you saying I'm the Antichrist?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What about manna?

You're welcome to sit in a cave and wait for manna to fall from the sky.

Why? Do I control food, medicine, the infrastructure through science?

No, but those who do control them do so through science. So if you say no to science, you'll be saying no to penicillin: it's procured through *gasp* science. Say no to science, and you'll be denying penicillin's medicinal value.

Are you saying I'm the Antichrist?

I'm sure there are CF rules against that sort of thing...

 

[Nostromo]

I am saying the two light bulbs do not demonstrate anything about the two objects that are said to be a billion light years apart.

It shows that optical illusions are a possibility.

And if we studied book(s) and the world around us and then came to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity did create everything, would it be a scientific fact.

What do you think genius?

 

[MoonLancer]

So, in other words, every time I turn my computer on, I have to agree with science in general, and evolution in particular, or I should conscientiously abstain from using it?

No but it is disingenuous to attack science while benefiting from it daily. What i am saying is if you really disagreed with science you would cut all connection the modern world. since you don't, there is a name for that.

Like I said, I pray the Rapture occurs before evolutionists come to power.

Why pray for it to occure at all? You would pray for Armageddon?

We "savages" look forward to it.

I hope your not talking about Armageddon

 

[3sigma]

I'm still waiting for any atheists to admit that science isn't the end-all-be-all of finding things out. Surely you can tell us what caused the big bang and provide empirical proof. Some tangible evidence or observation evidence of the mutliverse... something.

So, you can’t provide a single instance where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all. In a weak attempt to deflect attention from that fact, you trot out a specious red herring. No one really knows what caused the Big Bang. Credulous religious believers claim to know how the universe began. They believe their “God did it”, but they can’t provide a single instance where that has ever been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.

 

[3sigma]

We even have well evidenced documented support for the "God did it" hypothesis:

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. - Rom 1:20.

For future reference, whenever I see attempts to use Biblical quotes as “evidence”, they appear to me (and, I suspect, other non-believers) as, “Blah blah blah blah blah. – Rom 1:20”. Tales from an ancient, oft-refuted storybook of nonsense are worthless as evidence of anything other than credulity.

You have also failed to provide a single instance where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all. Come on. If it is true then why can’t any Christian here present at least one specific instance where it has been tested and verified as true?

 

[3sigma]

In my opinion, history would just repeat itself.

Here’s another Christian who is credulous enough to think that tales from an ancient storybook of nonsense are “evidence”.

Okay --- how would you test someone who claims they can speak in tongues?

That’s what I’m asking you to show. Show us how “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for speaking in tongues or anything else. If it hasn’t been tested and verified as true then only someone credulous would be certain it is true.

 

[MoonLancer]

Scientists cannot detect "God did it", neither can they detect "dark-energy", which make them on par.

thats wrong in a fundamental level

Lets say you see the rippling of a pond. what caused the ripple?

Saying it was a genocidal thing who is all loving that created the universe and cares weather you touch or not is ridiculous. Now saying that a force that was not or cannot be seen displaces the water and giving it a name is VERY DIFFERENT. You are trying to say they are the same thing. They are not.

You fail by using a more complied explanation to explain something that is simpler then that explanation.

There is no evidence of god creating but there is evidenced of annulus redshift being acted on.

 

[MoonLancer]

And if we studied book(s) and the world around us and then came to the conclusion that an omnipotent deity did create everything, would it be a scientific fact.

don't you mean Gods?

 

[MoonLancer]

I am saying the two light bulbs do not demonstrate anything about the two objects that are said to be a billion light years apart.

And they certainly say nothing about these using the Scientific Method:

They are still similar distance apart on the picture plane.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, but those who do control them do so through science. So if you say no to science, you'll be saying no to penicillin: it's procured through *gasp* science. Say no to science, and you'll be denying penicillin's medicinal value.

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

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

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.

I should write a pamphlet entitled, How to Reconcile Science with Scripture without Knowing a Lick of Science; and How to Know what Science to Reject, and what Science to Accept.

 

[AV1611VET]

No but it is disingenuous to attack science while benefiting from it daily. What i am saying is if you really disagreed with science you would cut all connection the modern world. since you don't, there is a name for that.

Really?

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

Why pray for it to occure at all? You would pray for Armageddon? I hope your not talking about Armageddon

The Rapture, MoonLancer, the Rapture.

I think, for you language aficionados, the word is harpazeo, or something like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here’s another Christian who is credulous enough to think that tales from an ancient storybook of nonsense are “evidence”.

Isn't that what you're asking for?

And asking for scientific evidence, while using word choices for the Bible like you do, is like hiring a team of scientists to go look for "that myth out there on the loch."

Like I'm fond of telling others, if I sponsored a team of scientists to go find the Loch Ness Monster, and I happened to overhear someone on the team talk about going out and finding "that myth" --- I'd have them removed from the team in a heartbeat.

 

[Jnwaco]

So, you can’t provide a single instance where “God did it” has been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all. In a weak attempt to deflect attention from that fact, you trot out a specious red herring. No one really knows what caused the Big Bang. Credulous religious believers claim to know how the universe began. They believe their “God did it”, but they can’t provide a single instance where that has ever been tested and verified as the true explanation for anything at all.

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