Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[kenblaster5000]

The New Age movement is replacing evolution. the New Age movement is devouring all evolutionists and becoming larger than evolution. it offers you knowlege and wisdom and ascension, talk to guides learn about our galactic brothers. on my site we speak daily about the new channelings that occur. and we always prove Christians and evolutionists wrong. we have minds of iron we have all the answers. there was a christian that came to my site NEWAGEDAWNS d.t c.M and his puny argumentss where torn apart by me and my friends.



what are the thoughts you have? do you realise that the New Age is going to be the 1 and only religion?

did you know we will replace Christianity and evolution and all other religions.

Thank you for actually revealing the enemies plans. Arrogance and pride, wise as a serpent but not gentle like doves. The dragon, the beast, and the false prophet, all the fallen angels, and those deceived including yourself will be cast into the lake of fire. Are these the rainbow, indigo children and such and of course knowledge and wisdom and such are from lucifer, the light bringer. Praise the Lord Jesus Christ, the name above all names, when the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will raise a banner. He is Jehovah Nissi, the Lord is my banner. JESUS CHRIST is LORD!

 

[kenblaster5000]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1I_IVnjQTU

 

[Wiccan_Child]

YouTube - Love To Say Your Name

Y'know, it was only on the previous page that a mod told you to stick to my OP. Kindly do so.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To whit: what constitutes a scientific explanation? As opposed to a non-scientific explanation, or just a half-baked ramble (e.g., the universe is a raison)...

 

[kenblaster5000]

Y'know, it was only on the previous page that a mod told you to stick to my OP. Kindly do so.

Did you listen to the song? It is a great song that goes through the names of God and what they mean. One of them is Jehovah Nissi, which means, the Lord is my banner. But, I am sure you really do not care to know the God who is closer than you think. Who then do you idolize? Yourself or a certain band. What do you love? That is your God and takes the place of loving the one who created all these things.

 

[kenblaster5000]

Mod hat on ​

Thread is re-opened.
Please deal with the OP not each other or this thread will be closed permanently.​

​

Mod hat off​

Good, close it!

 

[sandwiches]

To whit: what constitutes a scientific explanation? As opposed to a non-scientific explanation, or just a half-baked ramble (e.g., the universe is a raison)...

One that is based on objectively verifiable observations. For instance, the current theme in the forum is the electrical universe. While it'd be one thing to claim that EU is true, it's another entirely to claim that because it's electrical, it is conscious and God.

 

[Spacewyrm]

This thread's pretty long, so this has probably already been said, but...

I think that "God did it" could be an explaination for something; but I don't think it would be scientific until you had some evidence that God did do it. I don't think you would necessarily need to have a theory of how gods work, but if a god noticably intervenes in day-to-day affairs, poofing crockoducks into existence or whatever, then "God did it" would be a decent explaination of some phenomina, I would think. I suppose the trick is coming up with a way to figure out when God does it and when God doesn't do it. Hopefully you can get a better explaination by examining the miracles, but then again, gods seem to dislike being tested, don't they?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you listen to the song? It is a great song that goes through the names of God and what they mean.

And how is that relevant to the topic?

But, I am sure you really do not care to know the God who is closer than you think.

What a surprise, another Christian who would rather slap on a stereotype than actually get to know someone. Whatever makes you think I wouldn't want to believe in an all-loving, all-knowing being?

Who then do you idolize?

No one. I admire various people for various things, but I don't put anyone on a pedestal.

Yourself or a certain band. What do you love? That is your God and takes the place of loving the one who created all these things.

Allegedly.

Anyway, what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

Good, close it!

Why do you want this thread closed? If it offends your sensibilities, no one's forcing you to come here.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

One that is based on objectively verifiable observations. For instance, the current theme in the forum is the electrical universe.

Don't remind me! I miss the days of good old fashioned Creationism.

This thread's pretty long, so this has probably already been said, but...

I think that "God did it" could be an explaination for something; but I don't think it would be scientific until you had some evidence that God did do it. I don't think you would necessarily need to have a theory of how gods work, but if a god noticably intervenes in day-to-day affairs, poofing crockoducks into existence or whatever, then "God did it" would be a decent explaination of some phenomina, I would think. I suppose the trick is coming up with a way to figure out when God does it and when God doesn't do it. Hopefully you can get a better explaination by examining the miracles, but then again, gods seem to dislike being tested, don't they?

Ah, but haven't you heard? Even if God did poof crocoducks into existence on a daily basis, we atheists would still reject that as proof of God and instead come up with a natural explanation!
Therefore, atheists eat babies .

 

[Doveaman]

One that is based on objectively verifiable observations. For instance, the current theme in the forum is the electrical universe. While it'd be one thing to claim that EU is true, it's another entirely to claim that because it's electrical, it is conscious and God.

One that is based on objectively verifiable observations. For instance, the current theme in the forum is "inflation". While it is one thing to claim that "inflation" is true, it's another entirely to demonstrate a physical link between "inflation" and the movement of physical objects.

 

[Doveaman]

Don't remind me! I miss the days of good old fashioned Creationism.

Is it because Creationism supports your Big Bang deity but Plasma Cosmology doesn't?

 

[Cabal]

Is it because Creationism supports your Big Bang deity but Plasma Cosmology doesn't?

Talk sense - there's no form of creationism that supports the Big Bang.

Please stop projecting your desperation onto others.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it because Creationism supports your Big Bang deity but Plasma Cosmology doesn't?

Creationism postulates that the universe was created ~6000 years ago by a deity. The Big Bang theory says that the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old. You couldn't be more wrong... but then, you already know that. Do you have anything pertinent to say, or are you just stirring things up again?

 

[Jnwaco]

Creationism postulates that the universe was created ~6000 years ago by a deity. The Big Bang theory says that the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old. You couldn't be more wrong... but then, you already know that. Do you have anything pertinent to say, or are you just stirring things up again?

Actually, that's just young earth creationism. There are other kinds that are "old earth". This mischaracterization is a common mistake, lumping all creationists in with the YECs.

 

[BananaSlug]

"God did it" is an explanation but not a good one. A good explanation is specific to the phenomena being explained or described. Since "God did it" could be used as an explanation for anything, it explains nothing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Actually, that's just young earth creationism. There are other kinds that are "old earth". This mischaracterization is a common mistake, lumping all creationists in with the YECs.

I'm aware of OEC, but I don't consider that to be a branch of Creationism.

 

[Spacewyrm]

I'm aware of OEC, but I don't consider that to be a branch of Creationism.

Why?

 

[Doveaman]

Creationism postulates that the universe was created ~6000 years ago by a deity. The Big Bang theory says that the universe is at least 13.5 billion years old. You couldn't be more wrong... but then, you already know that. Do you have anything pertinent to say, or are you just stirring things up again?

What do you mean "pertinent"?

Was it not God who enabled the universe to rapidly expand faster than the speed of light?

Was it not God who enabled the universe to rapidly expand out of the singularity before its intense gravitational field could crush it out of existence?

Was it not God who enabled the extreme flatness of spacetime, and the appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy in the universe?

If not God, then who or what caused these effects?

And is there empirical evidence that physically links that cause to these effects?

Can this physical link be empirically demonstrated on earth here and now so that we can see it here and now and touch it here and now? or do we have to rely on faith to believe it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

What do you mean "pertinent"?

Was it not God who enabled the universe to rapidly expand faster than the speed of light?

Was it not God who enabled the universe to rapidly expand out of the singularity before its intense gravitational field could crush it out of existence?

Was it not God who enabled the extreme flatness of spacetime, and the appearance of extreme homogeneity and isotropy in the universe?

Was it?