VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
I dont understand, do you say that academia is an agent possible of making decisions by itself?
Upvote
0
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.
Fine ... academia was never alive then.
You can believe that, if you want; but don't expect me to.
At least I give them some credit.
Are you saying academia doesn't bring up Charlemagne as an example of a Christian man?So tradition brings up Charlemagne as a Christian man?And let me guess ... who should answer the call, but Charlemagne and his band of born-again Christians ... right?I've seen Hitler listed among saints too. And you wonder why I'm against academia?And let me guess: Jesus answered their prayers?Lest Mr Martel shut them down?Have I ever mentioned that the Antichrist will come from Europe?So let me get this straight:
People who can neither read nor write, call for help, and help arrives in the form of Charlemagne, who helps them. Then these ignorant peasants fly his banner from their bell towers, and you want me to believe that's acceptable behavior?
Do you find that acceptable behavior?
If not, okay with you if I don't either?
Unless I'm mistaken, Charlemagne was a Frenchman, not a Scotsman.
So yes, he was not a true Scotsman.
So it would not matter if it was proven that God exists, science still could say nothing about it? Totally nonsense. If the first cause is an all powerful force that has always existed, surely science would have to accept it.Gods or other supernatural causation would not be accepted in a scientific publication because science deals only with the natural. If you have a natural explanation, no one cares what your personal philosophy or religion are.
If it was proven that God existed it would be on the basis of empirical evidence and scientists would be glad to accept it. Metaphysical speculation is not empirical evidence and science proffers no opinion of it, pro or con.So it would not matter if it was proven that God exists, science still could say nothing about it? Totally nonsense. If the first cause is an all powerful force that has always existed, surely science would have to accept it.
Still doesnt make any sense. Almost everything in science is technically a theory. Why would an all powerful force creating everything not be one of the theories? It's as plausible as a lot of other ones.If it was proven that God existed it would be on the basis of empirical evidence and scientists would be glad to accept it. Metaphysical speculation is not empirical evidence and science proffers no opinion of it, pro or con.
Because there is no evidence for it. It's possible and some people find it plausible, but without evidence science can offer no opinion of it one way or the other.Still doesnt make any sense. Almost everything in science is technically a theory. Why would an all powerful force creating everything not be one of the theories? It's as plausible as a lot of other ones.
Still doesnt make any sense. Almost everything in science is technically a theory. Why would an all powerful force creating everything not be one of the theories? It's as plausible as a lot of other ones.
Give us a god- fact.Still doesnt make any sense. Almost everything in science is technically a theory. Why would an all powerful force creating everything not be one of the theories? It's as plausible as a lot of other ones.
So it would not matter if it was proven that God exists, science still could say nothing about it? Totally nonsense. If the first cause is an all powerful force that has always existed, surely science would have to accept it.
Others pointed out the "no true scotsman fallacy" that you produced, and your childish behaviour after that from post n° 831 to roughly 852. So there is no need for that anymore.I'm not obligated to accept Charlemagne as a brother in Christ. If you consider that a "No True Scotsman Fallacy," that's your prerogative.
Sure:Give us a god- fact.
None of those are facts about God. They are facts about people who believe in one particular god.Sure:
1. Time divided into BC and AD.
2. Organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
3. Hospitals built by Christian organizations.
4. Beautiful Christian artwork, edifices, statuary and literature.
5. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins and UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance.
6. The Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public.
7. Christmas & Easter
8. Symbols on bumper stickers and flags.
9. Public debates in the name of Christianity.
10. Crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ.
That "No True Scotsman Fallacy" accusation was pulled out of thin air, in my opinion, just to handwave away my points; and, frankly, didn't set well with me.Others pointed out the "no true scotsman fallacy" that you produced, and your childish behaviour after that from post n° 831 to roughly 852. So there is no need for that anymore.
i want to point out that that kind of behaviour pushes people away from christianity. You don't need to admit. Just need to think about it.
Then why did Jesus appeal to cause-and-effect to convince John the Baptist that He was the Messiah?None of those are facts about God. They are facts about people who believe in one particular god.
Nonsense.Because there is no evidence for it. It's possible and some people find it plausible, but without evidence science can offer no opinion of it one way or the other.
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?