Religious debate (split from main board)

well, i have never been to a church where Cotton Mather, or Jonathan Edwards has been preaching, so the extreme fire and brimstone in which are you insuating is really on the outliar of extremes.

another question is that why cant science and religion co-exist?

God made rules for humans to live by, by the same token, he made rules for the planet to function.
 
It isn't a jab, its an observation. Either you don't take the discussion seriously, at which point I question the reasoning behind sitting around for hours making flippant responses, or your hiding your insecurities regarding the legitimacy of what you have to say behind emoticons. I'm not trying to be aggressive, but making an observation. I would rather you spend less time thinking of clever witty replies, and more time seeing if what you are saying it relevant.

:lolabove:

If I didn't do what I do, there wouldn't be 1,000 replies to this thread and there wouldn't be a politics forum.

I give the newbies a voice and push them against the old timers......

Love me or hate me...... I have my purpose.....

:rock:
 
Trying to stay out of this argument. Never knew that religion could be such a testy topic. I do disagree with what you said though, Scientists will agree that the Big Bang has flaws, but 99.9% favor the Big Bang over creationist ideas.


That is because you (probably) don't live in the South.........pretty much the only place in the developed world where it is even a debate.
 
well, i have never been to a church where Cotton Mather, or Jonathan Edwards has been preaching, so the extreme fire and brimstone in which are you insuating is really on the outliar of extremes.

another question is that why cant science and religion co-exist?

God made rules for humans to live by, by the same token, he made rules for the planet to function.

We're kind of running back to where we started, now. The point is, by what rationality is there a God, god or whatever at all? It is based on faith alone, and that's when comparisons to fictional characters come in.
 
:lolabove:

If I didn't do what I do, there wouldn't be 1,000 replies to this thread and there wouldn't be a politics forum.

I give the newbies a voice and push them against the old timers......

Love me or hate me...... I have my purpose.....

:rock:

Is that what you think? You actually have a purpose? :p
 
We're kind of running back to where we started, now. The point is, by what rationality is there a God, god or whatever at all? It is based on faith alone, and that's when comparisons to fictional characters come in.

wheres the proof that there isnt a God?



also, what do you mean by fictional characters?
 
This is the most beautiful thing about a higher power...... you have no idea if he/she is real or not.

I love God's style....................... great sense of humor.
 
wheres the proof that there isnt a God?



also, what do you mean by fictional characters?

We are recovering ground. You don't go around assuming something is and trying to prove otherwise. If you did, there is no disproving the universe is really inside a giant marble, or that mole people live In the center of the earth.

No, assume a null hypothesis, that something doesn't exist, and then discard that null when it doesn't hold up to the evidence. This is what has led humans out of the dark ages.
 
wheres the proof that there isnt a God?



also, what do you mean by fictional characters?

The professor is back...for a moment...

Where is the proof that there isn't a god? Can you prove something like that? Go ahead...try to prove that anything doesn't exist. It doesn't work. What we can do, though, is say that the reasons for believing in god are weak, that there are logical inconsistencies in the definitions of god, and that there are reasons not to believe in god. Or we could just use Ockham's razor and say that we don't need that hypothesis.
 
The professor is back...for a moment...

Where is the proof that there isn't a god? Can you prove something like that? Go ahead...try to prove that anything doesn't exist. It doesn't work. What we can do, though, is say that the reasons for believing in god are weak, that there are logical inconsistencies in the definitions of god, and that there are reasons not to believe in god. Or we could just use Ockham's razor and say that we don't need that hypothesis.

Nice pic,:good!: now we can put a face, with that name.:)
 
wheres the proof that there isnt a God?



also, what do you mean by fictional characters?

There are uncountably infinite propositions that cannot be proved not to exist. These are called "unfalsifiable" propositions. An invisible fire-breathing dragon whose fire breath is heatless and can pass through objects is one example I cited a while back. You could have faith that such a thing exists but "Where's the proof that it doesn't exist" doesn't satisfy someone who doesn't share that faith. That's because faith works by assuming something's true without reason to do so, and then changing the picture to explain away why tests don't confirm it.

With God, this is seen in "God answers prayers except when he doesn't" and "you can't understand the will of God" (ironically they forget that part when they start talking about how we know this particular book IS the will of god).
 
As a follow up, if you're really interested in why nonbelievers don't believe, you can think of it by analogy. Why don't you believe in Zeus, Thor, or Apollo? Because you have no reason to. No one can show you evidence that they are real.
 
There are uncountably infinite propositions that cannot be proved not to exist. These are called "unfalsifiable" propositions. An invisible fire-breathing dragon whose fire breath is heatless and can pass through objects is one example I cited a while back. You could have faith that such a thing exists but "Where's the proof that it doesn't exist" doesn't satisfy someone who doesn't share that faith. That's because faith works by assuming something's true without reason to do so, and then changing the picture to explain away why tests don't confirm it.

With God, this is seen in "God answers prayers except when he doesn't" and "you can't understand the will of God" (ironically they forget that part when they start talking about how we know this particular book IS the will of god).

You had me till here...... huh?
 
As a follow up, if you're really interested in why nonbelievers don't believe, you can think of it by analogy. Why don't you believe in Zeus, Thor, or Apollo? Because you have no reason to. No one can show you evidence that they are real.

Zues, Thor or Apollo didn't have a bible that survived 2,000 years that teaches practical living.
 
He's talking about the whole "God always answers prayers. Sometimes the answer is no" thing.

Or the answer is "yes, no, or wait"

Yes means something happened to occur that you can rationalize as being God's will

No means God doesn't want to answer that prayer and so you have to invent a convoluted reason why

Wait means just wait for a while and eventually something will happen that you can rationalize as being God's will

At no point in that process does a believer ever attempt to make a test as to whether god is actually answering prayers or if nothing's happening. Every time a study is done to evaluate whether prayers are answered we get zero difference between prayer group and control group. When that happens the believers say "you can't test god".

But, if a study comes along that does show a difference, no matter how crappily designed it was, believers trumpet it as evidence that god is real.
 

VN Store



Back
Top