Hallelujah! You've Been Healed!!

#52
#52
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
i agree, to each their own. its just when someone claims someone is such an idiot for believing in a higher power and blah blah blah
Click to expand...

This thread is still going because someone thought their religion was legitimate and someone else's was loony.
 
#53
#53
IPorange said:
the evidence for global warming is a lot more vast than an error about himalayan glaciers that was caught by gcc scientists and stolen emails that were taken out of context. And your argument is very well suited for nihilism and not much else.
Click to expand...

I was only using your logic. Does that make you a nihilist? You tied validity and contradictions. I merely used one example of where science has contradictions and 'proof' is only based on what is 'discovered' at that moment in time and is based on opinion of analysis.

As far as "global warming" it is clear this occurs. So does cooling. It can have both man and nature 'modify' it. But to listen to what was presented in Copenhagen as the gospel truth and all one unified concept based in fact? I think not.
 
#54
#54
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
i agree, to each their own. its just when someone claims someone is such an idiot for believing in a higher power and blah blah blah
Click to expand...

Exactly. Arguing each belief on its merits is one thing. Simply calling someone an idiot because there beliefs don't match yours is dumb.
 
#55
#55
CSpindizzy said:
I was only using your logic. Does that make you a nihilist? You tied validity and contradictions. I merely used one example of where science has contradictions and 'proof' is only based on what is 'discovered' at that moment in time and is based on opinion of analysis.

As far as "global warming" it is clear this occurs. So does cooling. It can have both man and nature 'modify' it. But to listen to what was presented in Copenhagen as the gospel truth and all one unified concept based in fact? I think not.
Click to expand...

You apparently were unable to follow my logic. I think the breakdown began when you equated errors with contradictions. They aren't the same. An error is a mistake or oversimplification that can be cast aside and corrected. It happens all the time in science. If an inconsistency arises in science, it isn't left alone or struck up as the world working in "mysterious ways." Further researching and probing a scientific field isn't considered heretical.

If you want to discuss global warming and it's complexities, I am all for it. Of course there are natural forces driving climate. That is how climate works. But it is silly to think humans could have no substantial effect on it. There was a time when people believed it was impossible for humans to drive an animal into extinction. We know better, now.
 
#56
#56
You were the one who brought up "error" with the example of the Himalaya glacier melting. It IS a contradiction by the way. The info first given by one single scientist with no fact to back it up contradicted reality. You can argue semantics all day. But clearly the claim contradicted what actually happened.

You said the Bible was inaccurate and invalid due to contradictions. I asked for your list of contradictions. And I also pointed out that things in the science realm also had contradictions - thus the word 'theory' as opposed to fact. So with your own logic, will you hold the same value for various concepts in science that have noted contradictions?
 
#57
#57
Lets say, for conversations sake, 12 guys were out walking. During their walk, they saw a guy throw an orange ball in the air and it became a bird. These men, all well known and looked up to in the community, went and told this story. Since they were known to be truthful, people believed them. Soon, other people saw this man and his orange ball for themselves, and knew what the men had told was truth.

But one day, a man (who wasnt present) comes along and says the ball wasnt orange, it was blue, and it didnt turn into a bird because thats stupid, even though he had written accounts of the balls color and the events surrounding the story. He argues the blue ball looked orange because of the refraction of light off of ice crystals in the earths atmosphere. The bird was real, but just happened to fly into the scene at the time the ball was hurled towards the sky. He tells people to believe him because he is educated and has all these papers to prove his intellectual prowess.

Who do you believe?
 
#59
#59
CountVolcula said:
Lets say, for conversations sake, 12 guys were out walking. During their walk, they saw a guy throw an orange ball in the air and it became a bird. These men, all well known and looked up to in the community, went and told this story. Since they were known to be truthful, people believed them. Soon, other people saw this man and his orange ball for themselves, and knew what the men had told was truth.

But one day, a man (who wasnt present) comes along and says the ball wasnt orange, it was blue, and it didnt turn into a bird because thats stupid, even though he had written accounts of the balls color and the events surrounding the story. He argues the blue ball looked orange because of the refraction of light off of ice crystals in the earths atmosphere. The bird was real, but just happened to fly into the scene at the time the ball was hurled towards the sky. He tells people to believe him because he is educated and has all these papers to prove his intellectual prowess.

Who do you believe?
Click to expand...

Just for conversation sake....

YouTube - Criss Angel Walks on Water

Who do you believe? What you saw or the people that were there....or a scientist, expert, magician, etc...telling you it is impossible and there must be a trick to it?

Your comparison is just as absurd as this.
 
#60
#60
I would say the chief difference between science and religion is not the lack of contradiction or error, but rather the falsifiability (in principle) of good scientific theory.
 
#61
#61
CSpindizzy said:
You said the Bible was inaccurate and invalid due to contradictions. I asked for your list of contradictions. And I also pointed out that things in the science realm also had contradictions - thus the word 'theory' as opposed to fact. So with your own logic, will you hold the same value for various concepts in science that have noted contradictions?
Click to expand...

You never asked me to list contradictions. Enter it into google and you'll be given a list.

You don't know the definition of a "theory." That's common. It isn't the same kind of theory as we use in common speech.

Again, you don't seem to get my logic. You are trying to disprove science in favor of your religion, ironically through mediums only possible with science. The scientific process is just that: a process. Pointing out errors doesn't disprove science.
 
#62
#62
rjd970 said:
Just for conversation sake....

YouTube - Criss Angel Walks on Water

Who do you believe? What you saw or the people that were there....or a scientist, expert, magician, etc...telling you it is impossible and there must be a trick to it?

Your comparison is just as absurd as this.
Click to expand...

You're now comparing Christians to Chris Angel fans.

How much was Jesus' special effects budget?

I bet plexiglass was hard to come by in A.D. 29 Bethsaida

I do find it kind of ironic that I was once in your position in trying to prove the non-existence of God and disprove the Bible. Events in my life have lead me in the other direction. You might call it divine intervention.
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
TennTradition said:
I would say the chief difference between science and religion is not the lack of contradiction or error, but rather the falsifiability (in principle) of good scientific theory.
Click to expand...

I guess at the heart of it, this is the way I feel too. In science you generally get "kudos" for proving yourself or somebody else wrong. It is just as important to know something isn't right as opposed to always getting it right.

For instance, the Large Hadron Collider in Europe was designed to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, which would validate the Standard Model. There is some skepticism, however, that the Higgs Boson will not be seen, thus disproving the Standard Model (or at least, showing it needs refinement). If the particle deosn't show up, it doesn't mean it was a multi-billion dollar waste of an experiment, it is a success, by showing that the Standard Model is incomplete as we know it. That falsifiability is useful information.
 
#64
#64
CountVolcula said:
You're now comparing Christians to Chris Angel fans.

How much was Jesus' special effects budget?

I bet plexiglass was hard to come by in A.D. 29 Bethsaida

I do find it kind of ironic that I was once in your position in trying to prove the non-existence of God and disprove the Bible. Events in my life have lead me in the other direction. You might call it divine intervention.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Where did I compare Christians to Chris Angel fans? I was just demonstrating your cute balloon/bird story was utter nonsense.
 
Last edited:
#65
#65
rjd970 said:
I guess at the heart of it, this is the way I feel too. In science you generally get "kudos" for proving yourself or somebody else wrong. It is just as important to know something isn't right as opposed to always getting it right.

For instance, the Large Hadron Collider in Europe was designed to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, which would validate the Standard Model. There is some skepticism, however, that the Higgs Boson will not be seen, thus disproving the Standard Model (or at least, showing it needs refinement). If the particle deosn't show up, it doesn't mean it was a multi-billion dollar waste of an experiment, it is a success, by showing that the Standard Model is incomplete as we know it. That falsifiability is useful information.
Click to expand...



Which is exactly the opposite for religion. Setting out to test or disprove elements of a religion is somehow a horrible thing to do. Convenient.
 
#67
#67
IPorange said:
You never asked me to list contradictions. Enter it into google and you'll be given a list.

You don't know the definition of a "theory." That's common. It isn't the same kind of theory as we use in common speech.

Again, you don't seem to get my logic. You are trying to disprove science in favor of your religion, ironically through mediums only possible with science. The scientific process is just that: a process. Pointing out errors doesn't disprove science.
Click to expand...

Actually I asked in post 41 for contradictions from you. I didn't ask for Google lists. You made the statement and I asked you. That is unless Google now speaks for you.

And yes I understand the definition of 'theory'. And by your own statement you admit there are plural definitions of the word. Are you implying theory is somehow fact?

I am not trying to disprove anything of the sort. I never stated what I believed to begin with. I only questioned your own statements. Thank you for your theory though. And yes, your statement is a theory on not only what I was trying to disprove but also my religious views. You attempted to create something from nothing. Is this your basis for science?
 
#68
#68
rjd970 said:
Seriously?

Where did I compare Christians to Chris Angel fans? I was just demonstrating your cute balloon/bird story was utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


Maybe it was the walk-on-water reference in the video. Seems Jesus did something like that back in the day.

Why is my story nonsense?
 
#72
#72
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being."

Sir Isaac Newton

""In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

Albert Einstein
 
Last edited:
#73
#73
CountVolcula said:
What if God is the truth?
Would the Scientific community admit they were wrong in trying to disprove the existence of God, or would egos prevent that?
Click to expand...

Why in the world do you think science is trying to prove there's no god? Is there some secret research project I haven't heard of?

Science is interested in the truth. I have no doubt in my mind that if empirical proof of a god (or gods) was discovered, science would embrace it.
 
#75
#75
VolInMn said:
Why in the world do you think science is trying to prove there's no god? Is there some secret research project I haven't heard of?

Science is interested in the truth. I have no doubt in my mind that if empirical proof of a god (or gods) was discovered, science would embrace it.
Click to expand...

I am a "born again" follower of Jesus Christ, (as many here know) so what I say will seem slanted to those who do not share my beliefs.

With that being said, I think there are some that do not want to believe there is a God, that created all things, and sustains all things. Some of the reason I believe this, is due to the fact that, I, nor anyone else, will ever understand everything. This goes against human nature, which includes mine.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top