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.
Thanks for the QED.Yes, that is how it works.
Tell someone that Jesus walked on water, and he can -- not necessarily will, but can -- tell you that that would violate buoyancy laws.
Tell someone that the ex nihilo creation events during the creation week raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level today, and you just might get a lecture on the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Tell someone that the universe was created on 23 October 4004 BC, and you might get a lecture on the Big Bang and/or deep time.
And the list can go on and on.
At some point, you have to tell science to take a hike.
Here's something else I'll QED:Thanks for the QED.
Science is a method to understand physical reality.Here's something else I'll QED:
Science isn't just content to draw lines on paper and connect the dots.
Science goes overboard in the area of changing basic terms to theirs, which only ends up confusing itself.
My favorite example is when science calls miracles "magic," which stunts the conversation.
Science has tricks up its sleeve and, as I said, there's a point when you either have to tell science to take a hike or, as you said, agree to disagree.
Look at the title of this thread, then read the OP.Science is a method to understand physical reality.
Its not an entity that has agency.
As I said, thanks for the QED.Look at the title of this thread, then read the OP.
It appeals to DNA to make its point.
But in Phred's [Do You Have Parents?] thread, I appealed to DNA, and pitabread needed clarification!
Science can take a hike, and take its slick attempts at muddying the waters with it.
sure, in the vacuum of science, science is never wrong.I think that what happens in science, is that it discovers how something was done. Which may allow you to say: 'Yeah, that's how God did it. That's the process He used.' And we're both happy.
But, if you start first and make a claim that you know how God did something and it doesn't match what science tells us could have happened naturally, then we have a problem. And we have to agree to disagree.
Why do you suppose it is that those who appeal to science over the Bible, usually end up ridiculing God's children?As I said, thanks for the QED.
sure, in the vacuum of science, science is never wrong.
I'd say something here, but cry babies would probably report me.It's often wrong. But it is self correcting.
You're safe - creationists rarely report other creationists.I'd say something here, but cry babies would probably report me.
This is incredibly funny.Why do you suppose it is that those who appeal to science over the Bible, usually end up ridiculing God's children?
Ken Ham is this, Kent Hovind is that.
And even organizations that dare speak for God get ridiculed.
This one is a classic:
Guess where I drove by last night.
And you misunderstood the argument. There may be a God. There may not be one. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God or even a need for one. The point was that different people believe in different versions of God.if there are versions of deities that are based in this space-time continuum (STC), like for example the FSM, then it is possible for science to disprove them. the concept of competing gods is not sustainable and "God" eventually demands one all-powerful that preexists all things, is the source of all things, has no beginning or end, and is unchanging and when I refer to God it is those characteristics I invoke.
If there is a God regardless what I or 1000 other people think of him God exists separate from these beliefs and it's a moot point that 1000 people think of God differently. 1000 scientists may have different versions of the big bang theory but varied versions do not negate the event and if the big bang happened it happened separate from these varied versions and it only happened one way so either only one version is right or none of them are fully correct (or maybe they are all right in the context of a multiverse). Either God is or he is not but 1000 varied ideas of God doesn't negate him or define him and to suggest it does is just silly.
Nope. You definitely did not understand the argument. Just because someone believes in something does not make it real. In fact many people (ahem) have false beliefs but refuse to drop them.We must have about ten different moons then.
And two Plutos.
Merry Christmas!No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God ...
There's an old saying that says otherwise:Subduction Zone said:... or even a need for one.
Merry Christmas!There's an old saying that says otherwise:
There are no atheists in foxholes.
Unless it was real before it was believed in.Just because someone believes in something does not make it real.
You're still here, aren't you?You're reading what one of them wrote right now. I've had a couple of occasions where I honestly thought I was going to die. With enough time to think about making a deal with anyone who might be able to help.
Didn't happen.
you'll have to fill me in on what argument you are presenting here. if not to build a case against the existence of God then what is the goal behind saying people believe in different versions of God? people certainly do believe in different versions of God. But that's not an argument, that's a statement.And you misunderstood the argument. There may be a God. There may not be one. No one can seem to find any reliable evidence for a God or even a need for one. The point was that different people believe in different versions of God.
Thanks for the QED.At least that's something we all agree on.
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?