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.
You mean other than the fact the universe and life exist, and no other alternative is proven.
While as a Christian I believe that, the problem is that Science has no room for unverified or unverifiable beliefs . Those are called fantasies.
You do know by definition that “observation” is a big part of true science???That’s not evidence, ya know, that’s just an observation .
Sounds like a “liar, liar, pants on fire” strategy to me. What is your alternative about how life appears?No other alternative about how life appears, other than being created by a deity, is a silly and baseless lie
An odd sort of accusation to make about a Christian. I take it you are not familiar with the distinction between the philosophical naturalism of atheism and the methodological naturalism of science.You’re not arguing science and religion, you’re rejecting one religion, claiming it has no merit, and arguing your case with another one, philosophical naturalism (a “belief” that the natural world is all that exists, which has no proof either). The belief that a natural world is all that exists is not only unverified, but it is unverifiable as well... a fantasy according to your definition.
An odd sort of accusation to make about a Christian. I take it you are not familiar with the distinction between the philosophical naturalism of atheism and the methodological naturalism of science.
Then I'd say you got yourself a problem there in convincing anyone other than the most gullible.
Lets see if I got this right, your present definition of dishonest is that I don't believe science proves nothing?
. As a previous poster said , there’s a difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is used used by scientists to get accurate information from the natural world. Philosophical naturalism is a belief structure.You’re not arguing science and religion, you’re rejecting one religion, claiming it has no merit, and arguing your case with another one, philosophical naturalism (a “belief” that the natural world is all that exists, which has no proof either). The belief that a natural world is all that exists is not only unverified, but it is unverifiable as well... a fantasy according to your definition.
You’re not arguing science and religion, you’re rejecting one religion, claiming it has no merit, and arguing your case with another one, philosophical naturalism (a “belief” that the natural world is all that exists, which has no proof either). The belief that a natural world is all that exists is not only unverified, but it is unverifiable as well... a fantasy according to your definition.
You do know by definition that “observation” is a big part of true science???
Sounds like a “liar, liar, pants on fire” strategy to me. What is your alternative about how life appears?
If by "gullible" you mean anyone who is actually scientifically literate and understands scientific principles and the scientific process, sure.
Not sure how you could misunderstand what I said, it seems pretty straightforward.
You demand X. People explain to you that "X" is not how it works. You then again demand X.
Either you don't understand basic english, or you are being dishonest. Or trolling, off course.
so science cant prove the earth is a round?Note the bolded part. That's a negation.
To say "prove the earth is NOT flat", actually means "DISPROVE the eart is flat".
Science is very much able to DISPROVE positive assertions, if those assertions are wrong.
Lawrence Krauss once said it quite clearly: "Science isn't in the business of proving things. Rather, science is more in the business of disproving things. Science as such can not tell you what is abolutely correct. But it CAN tell you what is absolutely wrong!"
What you just said about a flat earth, is not positively proving something correct.
It is, disproving a positive assertion. That assertion being "the earth is flat". Negating the assertion and then removing the "dis" from "disproving", does not change that.
But not without some confirming evidence.Still with the "because I said so", or "I'm literate on something that doesn't even exist." Not much sense in even arguing with someone who actually claims they cannot prove what they say is true, and who only keep insinuating, I should believe them without proof.
So what? You're not required to accept the theory of evolution.Nothing new here. You've given me absolutely no logical reason to believe you...none.
Design can never be detected directly, it must be inferred. As a practical matter we assume the cars we see are designed because we have no experience of cars which are not man-made. If there were cars which were not man-made along with cars which were man-made then we would have to examine them more carefully to determine which cars could be said to be designed, and which ones we couldn't come to a decision about.so you cant detect design when you see a car?
But not without some confirming evidence.
So what? You're not required to accept the theory of evolution.
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?