page 5 of 9 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next » 196 total items
the diplomatic and superficial way to answer your question is that, science and religion have contrasting beliefs.
what might be the truth however, is that they fight because of power.when one gains more power, the other party loses power.is like a tug-of-war.
but despite that sounding not very good, i think its essential to have two huge power-giants fighting in such a manner simply because it keep equilibrium.
;when the taste of blood become bittersweet
My
Gallery
latest wallpaper: Point-blanc
Quote by Persocom01
Quote by CyberDragoonSo when the fossil evidence supports the Bible you'll agree but when it abundantly disproves the Bible you'll disagree? Just to note, the fossil snake is believed to have lived 95 million years ago.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm
Did you not read my post at all? Carbon-14 dating IS NOT RADIOMETRIC DATING!
The Prince of Nothing
Quote by Persocom01I have already argued against the accuracy of carbon-14 dating of anything over 50-60,000 years old. And even then the site admits that impurities can easily produce large variations in the dated age.
I'm not sure where you got that from. The site makes no mention of carbon-14 in any way and it doesn't mention impurities at all. Where are you getting that from?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/03/000317051940.htm
Just to note because of the inaccuracies brought about by using Carbon-14 dating it would be foolish of them to try to use that method to date the fossil. They would have used other forms of dating such as radiometric dating.
Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes. Age estimates can be cross-tested by using different isotope pairs. Results from different techniques, often measured in rival labs, continually confirm each other.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
This site refutes many arguments that are used concerning inaccuracies in dating.
And that's my two yen.
Quote by PlunkiesDid you not read my post at all? Carbon-14 dating IS NOT RADIOMETRIC DATING!
Carbon-14 is a from of radiometric dating. I do now recognise, however, the need to deal with other forms of radiometric dating. Have patience, I will edit my posts from time to time.
On the limitations of all forms of radiometric dating:
ASSUMPTION: the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or the amount can be
accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its
uranium.
PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the
start.
PERSONAL OPINION: There is seldom reason to believe that "daughter" elements infiltrated a sample, so
I'll assume that this assumption is true, most of the time.
ASSUMPTION: the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside
factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached
in or leached out of the sample. There are evidences that this could be a significant problem. Simple things such as
groundwater movement can carry radioactive material or the daughter element into or out of rock. Rocks must be carefully
tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.
PERSONAL OPINION: As long as the age of something like the earth can be derived from multiple sources, such an error is
unlikely to occur in all samples taken.
ASSUMPTION: the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.
PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of
decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly
making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive
decay can change. If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly
"date" as being old rocks.
PERSONAL OPINION: I believe this to be an unfair assumption, because you are assuming that nothing can affect the rate
of decomposition. Not only that, you are also assuming that nothing during the "billion" or so years affected
the rate of decomposition.
EVIDENCE:
Is the rate of decomposition unchanged?
"In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years." - extract from the article
Up to date on 21 August 2003.
Is it possible for the decay rate to change drastically?
I recognise that the most widely accepted age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. However, we must also note that a widely accepted "fact" is not neccessarily true. As most of us know, it was once widely accepted that the world is flat. Due to the advancement of science and technology however, we know that not to be true today.
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Quote by Persocom01Carbon-14 is a from of radiometric dating.
Ugh. Yeah you knew all along....Even though for the past 5 posts you've been linking carbon-14 sites anytime I mentioned radiometric dating. Jesus Christ....
Quote: I do now recognise, however, the need to deal with other forms of radiometric dating. Have patience, I will edit my posts from time to time.
OH GEE! How lucky for us! I'm glad you recognize it because I'm just dying to be regaled by your groundbreaking scientific facts and theories! I could just wet myself in anticipation!
Quote:
ASSUMPTION: the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.
PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet Evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change. If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.
PERSONAL OPINION: I believe this to be an unfair assumption, because you are assuming that nothing can affect the rate of decomposition. Not only that, you are also assuming that nothing during the "billion" or so years affected the rate of decomposition.
EVIDENCE:Is the rate of decomposition unchanged?
"In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than between 4,000 and 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years' worth (at today's rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5680 (+/- 2000) years." - extract from the article
Up to date on 21 August 2003.
The difference is constant rates of decomposition are supported by evidence while your side is supported by wishful thinking and prayer.
1. The constancy of radioactive decay is not an assumption, but is supported by evidence:
* The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
* Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Kn���¶dlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
* The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
2. Radioactive decay at a rate fast enough to permit a young earth would have produced enough heat to melt the earth (Meert 2002).
3. Different radioisotopes decay in different ways. It is unlikely that a variable rate would affect all the different mechanisms in the same way and to the same extent. Yet different radiometric dating techniques give consistent dates. Furthermore, radiometric dating techniques are consistent with other dating techniques, such as dendrochronology, ice core dating, and historical records (e.g., Renne et al. 1997).
4. The half-lives of radioisotopes can be predicted from first principles through quantum mechanics. Any variation would have to come from changes to fundamental constants. According to the calculations that accurately predict half-lives, any change in fundamental constants would affect decay rates of different elements disproportionally, even when the elements decay by the same mechanism (Greenlees 2000; Krane 1987).
Quote: I recognise that the most widely accepted age of the earth is 4.5 billion years. However, we must also note that a widely accepted "fact" is not neccessarily true. As most of us know, it was once widely accepted that the world is flat. Due to the advancement of science and technology however, we know that not to be true today.
Oh you have a lot a nerve to ridicule the people who thought the Earth was flat in ancient times when you're in the year 2006 seriously arguing the fact that the universe is 6000 years old and dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony. You're such a hypocrite. Don't you get it? YOU'RE THE ONE SAYING THE EARTH IS FLAT! We're the ones arguing against you with evidence that the Earth is round while you continue to bury your head in the sand!
1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."
(shamayim means dome in hebrew)
ob 9:8, "...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]..."
Psalm 19:1, "The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork."
Psalm 102:25, "...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork."
Isaiah 45:12, "I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine..."
Isaiah 48:13, "...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]..."
Daniel 4:10-11, "...saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."
Matthew 4:8, "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory."
Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him..."
Revelation 6:13-16: "...the stars in the sky fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne..."
"From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch."
With every argument you make I might as well be hearing "The Earth is flat!" from you. We actually provide evidence while you continue to hope that your bible is true.
Quote by Persocom01I believe that the moment a person can think, and question his existance is reason enough for the belief in a God.
You see, I believe that humans believe in a God without need for any "justification" by default. I believe that the belief in an absence of a God is what requires "justification".
So you see, I would ask you for your justification on why you don't believe in a God just as you would ask me for my justification for my belief in my God.
You're getting things mixed up. Not believing in a God and saying God doesn't exist are two different things.
The latter is still an atheist, but those who hold the belief God cannot exist apply it to specific Gods, usually the
Christian God. I lack a belief in God because to my knowledge there isn't evidence to support a belief in His
existence.
Yes, someone who states, "God cannot exist," needs to prove it since there making an affirmative statement. However, this also applies to someone who makes the statement "God exists."
Why is someone's ability to think proof of God? Why can't it just be that they have the ability to think instead. What you're saying might as well be me saying, "I believe that the moment someone dies a flying pig is born on the other side of the Universe."
Quote by Persocom01I also believe that there is no real stand of "having no claim in a God". Your heart either believes in one or does not.
Errm... okay. That makes my heart stupid if it makes assumptions without evidence.
Quote by Persocom01To me, Theism is logical, and Atheism is not.
I already explained to you why atheism is logical. Theism is too, if it has proof, which I don't happen to know of
any.
Quote by Persocom01I have found the Bible to be the wisest, most profound book that I have ever read.
That's odd, I've found it to be a book based on mostly bigotry and hiting people with stones for no apparent reason.
Quote by Persocom01I find that the truth and prophecy it contains far surpasses all known human teachings. I believe the God of absolute holiness and justice it describes, and I believe the universe is his creation. This is not the reason I believe in a God. This is the reason I believe in the Christian God.
No it's not. Almost any God could have created the Bible to test your ability to find the true God(s). This is the
point of proof. Without proof anything can be asserted as true. Even if God exists he might as well not if there's
no evidence for His existence.
Quote by Persocom01So you think people were stupid just because they thought differently.
Great refutation. My point was that spontaneous generation at least seemed somewhat believable at the time because
that's how some animals seemed to come about (spontaneous generation was the idea that things were generated
spontaneously, such as flies magically popping up from meat).
Quote by Persocom01If you don't believe that God created life, you believe in abiogenesis, which is spontaneous generation. There are only 2 sides to a coin. There is God, or there is not. The fact that there is life isn't disputed.
I don't hold the belief God created life, nor do I hold the belief in abiogenesis. I don't personally know how
life came about. Maybe you do, but now you have to provide evidence of this.
Quote by Persocom01
"What's wrong with being unsure of something and not making yourself look like an idiot?" - alexjohnc3From a psychological point of view, the reason why you are an atheist is because you don't want to look like a religious idiot. Instead you prefer atheism as you can draw security from what is perceived to be 'smart' or 'logical'.
Wrong, the reason I'm an atheist is because I don't have reason to believe in the existence of God. Making the
assumption that God exists without any evidence is what would make me "look like a religious idiot".
Don't try to twist the meaning of my posts, it isn't going to do you any good.
Quote by Persocom01The "junk" DNA that http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence12.htm suggests is not junk. Scientists now believe what was first called "junk" DNA now has a purpose....The shape of chromatin matters. ... 'There is a whole new universe out there that we have been blind to,' Bestor says. 'It is very exciting.'"
Up to date in 2006. Let us not make hasty evolutionary assumptions.
If the "junk DNA" has value or doesn't doesn't prove God or disprove God. I was just posting an
example of how if God existed why would he create meaningless stuff. If there is no known value of some DNA it
isn't an assumption to state, "there is no known value."
You failed to show any proof in what you said, but only, "scientists think this is true." You didn't even cite your source.
Quote by Persocom01
Quote by alexjohnc3Tell me, how do you determine how complex something has to be before it couldn't have come about through other means than the Christian God?
I didn't. Nowhere did I mention "Christian God". I'm only arguing against the belief in the absence of one.
Well, you know, typically Christians believe that their God created everything, not another God.
If for some reason you believe your God didn't create everything and instead it was another God, "Tell me, how do you determine how complex something has to be before it couldn't have come about through other means than God?"
Now could you answer my question?
Quote by Persocom01So you believe there is a God who designed humans. If so, you have claimed that you believe that such a God exists. How can you also claim to be an atheist then?
Are you an idiot? I don't know if humans were designed or not. I do have more reason to believe that they
weren't designed (at least not by something with an unimaginable intellect) since they're horribly flawed. If
God created humans you'd think you'd at least be able to understand that a belief needs
justification.
Quote by Persocom01Since the possibility of it occuring is beyond the realm of probability, I believe beyond reasonable doubt that it did not occur by chance.
No matter what happens there's a certain probability that exact thing would have happened, based on your knowledge.
Let's say there's four cards. Your chances of picking any of those specific cards is 1/4. Let's put in
999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 cards, or as many as you want. No matter what, you're going to get a card.
According to your logic you wouldn't get a card because it is "beyond reason doubt" due to the small
probability of that card being picked.
Quote by Persocom01Personal beliefs do not make things true.
Woah. You admitted it.
Quote by alexjohnc3Congrats, you've just stated that your religion cannot be true. Be happy that all sane Christians disagree with you, including my father, who is extremely intelligent.
Quote by Persocom01If the history of life according to the theory of evolution is true then Christianity is not. Simple as that. (note that Christianity never disputes the fact that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, or that rabbits can grow longer fur, or even natural selection for that matter. I've stated that I believe in limited adaptability.)
That's because God didn't know about those things at the time. The Bible also doesn't state that natural
selection is true nor that bacteria even exists.
Most Christians don't take the Old Testament literally... the only one's that do usually don't have a basis for their beliefs, like you, apparently.
I'm gonna add my two cents worth to this discussion. Personally, I believe in the existance of a soul and my own theory of how it interacts with the rest. It will never be proven, but the theory is mine. As far as the existance of god.........it's between your soul and the world. Look around you, I mean, really take a good look around, try to get a feel for it. Now, do you think god exists?
And there, that's your answer, whether it's yes or no, it is the answer from your soul.
merged: 06-11-2006 ~ 04:49pm
what more confirmation or denial would you need ?
If there is a god or not, the existance of the universe will be difficult to explain.
You can say that the universe exists for an eternity, but can something be eternal. Everything that exists must have a
beginning. So the universe must come from something else. But that something else must also have a beginning..
With this I am only moving the problem.
At some point something must have been created out of nothing. But is that thought not as impossible that the universe
has always existed?
The bible teaches that God created the universe, but what about God itself then?
Did he created itself? ofcourse God can do a lot of things, but to create yourself before there is something to create
yourself with and before you even exist is one hell of an task. So there is one possibility left: God has always been
there.
But in the lines above I have rejected that possibility...
GEE, why would that only leave God always existing as the only possibility? Why can't matter just have always existed?
Quote by NatraxI'm gonna add my two cents worth to this discussion. Personally, I believe in the existance of a soul and my own theory of how it interacts with the rest. It will never be proven, but the theory is mine.
Do you understand why concepts need falsifiability? You've just shown that your belief is the equivalent in
believing in magical, invisible, flying pigs that can never be observed.
Quote by NatraxAs far as the existance of god.........it's between your soul and the world.
What?
Quote by Natrax
Look around you, I mean, really take a good look around, try to get a feel for it. Now, do you think god exists?
Quote by NatraxAnd there, that's your answer, whether it's yes or no, it is the answer from your soul.
Great job, you've just proven that there's stuff around me. What did that have to do with God again?
You might also like to know that people think with something called their brain, not an unobservable "thing" that is somewhere that was not created thousands of years ago by people who lacked explanations for their ability to function.
Quote by Natraxwhat more confirmation or denial would you need ?
Hmm... well maybe something that has to do with the existence of God?
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" - 2 Peter 3:3-5
There will be people in the last days who will doubt the existance of God, and disbelieve that he created the world.
To Plunkies:
You wanted answers to questions like "How can the earth be thousands of years old if we can see the stars millions of light years away?" and I have provided it. However I will never be able to prove all things that have occured in Biblical history. I was not there to see it, nor do I understand all created things. That is why I did not proclaim the Bible as fact. I proclaim that I believe it as true.
My stand has remained the same: The evolutionary history of life is not fact.
To alexjohnc3:
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" - Romans 1:20
If you seek poof of God, there is proof in the creations of the world.
"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." - Sir Isaac Newton
Justification of God is different to everyone. You cannot say that my belief in God is unjustified. You can only say that my belief in God is not justifiable by your own standards.
Quote by alexjohnc3Almost any God could have created the Bible to test your ability to find the true God(s).
Prove it.
Quote by alexjohnc3No matter what happens there's a certain probability that exact thing would have happened, based on your knowledge. Let's say there's four cards. Your chances of picking any of those specific cards is 1/4. Let's put in 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 cards, or as many as you want. No matter what, you're going to get a card. According to your logic you wouldn't get a card because it is "beyond reason doubt" due to the small probability of that card being picked.
No. My logic is that there is reason to believe that a particular card (unique among the 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999) managed to get picked was not due to chance.
In other words, I choose to believe the 99.999999999999999999999999999% probablity that it was not chance rather than of the 0.000000000000000000000000001% probability offered by chance.
On behalf of GEE and Natrax:
Quote by alexjohnc3GEE, why would that only leave God always existing as the only possibility? Why can't matter just have always existed?
It's possible that matter always existed, it isn't falsifiable, or observable, but it's pointless to consider that to be true because if the matter didn't exist then you're making the assumption that it did exist. Just because there's a lack of evidence for the existence of matter doesn't mean that the matter was hiding, it means there's no reason to believe matter existed.
Quote by alexjohnc3Do you understand why concepts need falsifiability? You've just shown that your belief is the equivalent in believing in magical, invisible, flying pigs that can never be observed.
Quote by NatraxLook around you, I mean, really take a good look around, try to get a feel for it. Now, do you think god exists?
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" - Romans 1:20
He does believe, by his own standards of justification, that a god exists. Mr.alexjohnc3, you seem to have a habit of imposing your standard of justification on everyone.
Edits: It is not true that early Christians believed that the world was flat.
"Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet, it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the 'official Christian viewpoint'." - http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html
"A few early Christian writers questioned or even opposed the sphericity of the Earth on theological grounds, but these writers are not thought to have been influential in the Middle Ages due to a scarcity of references to their work in medieval writings....
...There is evidence that the spherical Earth was accepted by many Christians. For example, Emperor Theodosius II of the Byzantine Empire placed the globus cruciger (which depicts Earth as round) on his coins." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Quote by alexjohnc3GEE, why would that only leave God always existing as the only possibility? Why can't matter just have always existed?
That was a temporary conclusion in my redenation. In the end both outcomes are equally impropable for me.
Quote by Persocom01"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" - Romans 1:20
If you seek poof of God, there is proof in the creations of the world.
Could you be more specific? If you mean everything that exists, then there's no reason to believe that God created
everything.
What you're saying makes no sense. There's no reason that everything couldn't have come about from something other than God.
1. Things exist.
2. Things seem complex to me.
3. Therefore God exists.
^ Example of horrible logic.
Quote by Persocom01"In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence." - Sir Isaac Newton
Justification of God is different to everyone. You cannot say that my belief in God is unjustified. You can only say that my belief in God is not justifiable by your own standards.
Wow. Just, that's pathetic. "My standards" are logical, and I've already shown why they are. By your
"standards" things that have no evidence for existing automatically exist based solely on your belief in
them.
You keep using the burden of proof incorrectly, stating that God exists just because I can't prove He doesn't. I'm sorry, but you are one of the most idiotic people I've ever conversed with. Probably the most idiotic that uses decent grammar. I'm really sorry if that sounded mean, but it's getting really hard to stand your ignorance.
Some information on the burden of proof, since you don't seem to understand it: -http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/burdenofproof.htm
Quote by Persocom01
Quote by alexjohnc3Almost any God could have created the Bible to test your ability to find the true God(s).
Prove it.
Good, you're using the burden of proof correctly in this case since I'm the one making the assertion.
^_^
1. Most gods can, if they exist, write.
2. Most gods, if they exist, could have made up the Bible since they can write.
3. Therefore if a god wanted to create a book, it could.
Now if there are any flaws in my reasoning you point them out in a logical, orderly fashion.
Quote by Persocom01No. My logic is that there is reason to believe that a particular card (unique among the 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999) managed to get picked was not due to chance.
All of the cards are unique. You assume that you'll get a certain card beforehand, in which case probability
applies, but if you get the card already you would then state, "Oh, that had a small chance of happening. Therefore
God exists."
No matter what happened you would say that God did it because of the low probability of it occurring.
Quote by Persocom01In other words, I choose to believe the 99.999999999999999999999999999% probablity that it was not chance rather than of the 0.000000000000000000000000001% probability offered by chance.
You seem to think chance governs reality. It doesn't, but it governs the accuracy of a guess. If I made a random
guess on what would occur then probability would apply, but after you know the result, it's illogical to say that
something must have intervened to give you that result.
Many religious people do this all the time with lottery tickets. Someone's going to win, it's not likely to be you. However, if you've already won, that just means that you guessed the correct result. It doesn't mean God decided to let you win. That could be why you won, but if there's no evidence as to that being the cause then it cannot assumed to be so.
Quote by Persocom01
Quote by alexjohnc3GEE, why would that only leave God always existing as the only possibility? Why can't matter just have always existed?
It's possible that matter always existed, it isn't falsifiable, or observable, but it's pointless to consider that to be true because if the matter didn't exist then you're making the assumption that it did exist. Just because there's a lack of evidence for the existence of matter doesn't mean that the matter was hiding, it means there's no reason to believe matter existed.
Oh wait, he's regressed to being an idiot again. You don't even read what you copy and paste from me do you?
It doesn't even make sense. Do you think your computer doesn't exist, because it's made of matter. Matter
may not have existed forever, but I wasn't stating that is has. My post was meant to ask GEE why matter
couldn't have existed forever, not to prove that matter has indeed existed forever. Stop being such an idiot, it
makes me really dislike you strongly and I try not to feel that way about people whenever possible.
Quote by Persocom01
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" - Romans 1:20
This is incoherent.
Quote by Persocom01
He does believe, by his own standards of justification, that a god exists. Mr.alexjohnc3, you seem to have a habit of imposing your standard of justification on everyone.
Mr. alexjohnc3? x_x
His "standard" didn't make any sense. It's like me saying, "look at that tree. Therefore there must be a flying squirrel on Mars."
I have a habit of imposing my "standard of justification on everyone," do I? Well maybe because I've shown why my "standard of justification" is logical and why things need to be falsifiable. If they aren't that means things like an Invisible Pink Unicorn have been proven to exist. Your "standard of justification makes no sense because you don't realize the implications it has on the existence of things other than your God. If all that's needed for something to be true is a belief in it, then Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy should be real too.
Quote by Persocom01"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:" - 2 Peter 3:3-5
There will be people in the last days who will doubt the existance of God, and disbelieve that he created the world.
Wow they actually predicted that people wouldn't believe their ridiculous and crazy stories!? IMAGINE THAT!
Quote: That is why I did not proclaim the Bible as fact. I proclaim that I believe it as true.
Exactly. I could sit here and and disprove every word of the bible beyond a reasonable doubt and you'd still believe it as though I was just the devil working his evil logic magic on you. The words "brainwashed" and "insane" spring to mind.
Quote: My stand has remained the same: The evolutionary history of life is not fact.
Also that humans rode dinosaurs around like horses, the earth is flat, stoning people is a reasonable way of solving problems and that torturing someone for all eternity for being logical is perfect "justice".
Quote: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" - Romans 1:20
If you seek poof of God, there is proof in the creations of the world.
You don't even understand the meaning of the word "proof" so I insist you stop using it entirely.
Quote: Justification of God is different to everyone. You cannot say that my belief in God is unjustified. You can only say that my belief in God is not justifiable by your own standards.
Duh. You can justify anything. No one is really saying your beliefs are unjustified, they're saying you're wrong.
Quote:
Quote by alexjohnc3Almost any God could have created the Bible to test your ability to find the true God(s).
Prove it.
Hey! I wanna play!
The bible is not the word of god. The bible has human authors assigned to it. God would have an easier time writing it himself than he would possessing random people's bodies, so the bible was most certainly written by humans.
Quote:
Quote by alexjohnc3No matter what happens there's a certain probability that exact thing would have happened, based on your knowledge. Let's say there's four cards. Your chances of picking any of those specific cards is 1/4. Let's put in 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 cards, or as many as you want. No matter what, you're going to get a card. According to your logic you wouldn't get a card because it is "beyond reason doubt" due to the small probability of that card being picked.
No. My logic is that there is reason to believe that a particular card (unique among the 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999) managed to get picked was not due to chance.
In other words, I choose to believe the 99.999999999999999999999999999% probablity that it was not chance rather than of the 0.000000000000000000000000001% probability offered by chance.
More flawed creationist logic. What a surprise!
The problem is a card would have been picked either way. It's only improbable if you guessed which card was picked BEFORE that card was picked.
I'll use Dawkins' example to explain better. It would be foolish to hit a golf ball on a golf course and when it landed exclaim "Out of all the millions of blades of grass this ball could have landed on, it landed on this particular one!". It had to land SOMEWHERE. It just happened to land on that blade of grass. It's only improbable if you picked out that blade of grass BEFORE you hit the ball.
All those cards have a .000001% chance of being picked.
Quote: It's possible that matter always existed, it isn't falsifiable, or observable, but it's pointless to consider that to be true because if the matter didn't exist then you're making the assumption that it did exist. Just because there's a lack of evidence for the existence of matter doesn't mean that the matter was hiding, it means there's no reason to believe matter existed.
Occam's Razor. It's more logical to say that the universe has always existed, rather than god created the universe and god has always existed. With god you're just needlessly pushing the blame around.
Quote: He does believe, by his own standards of justification, that a god exists. Mr.alexjohnc3, you seem to have a habit of imposing your standard of justification on everyone.
Heh, I love this. If you've been following this thread perso originally started out trying to prove his beliefs as facts or at least make them plausable in reality. At this point he's struggling simply to justify those beliefs within himself.
Quote by fantasyillusion :pacman:Science and religion are both ways of thinking but howcome lots of poeple who are very addicted to god disagree with science and the sci disagree with god?
And why dpes there arguments between them? :pacman:
merged: 05-08-2006 ~ 06:40pm
*And why does there arguments between them?*
On the surface there's a conflict between them, but a lot of scientists are religious. Darwin was raised in a very Christian household and kept his spirituality and at the end of his book, he attributed the genesis of evolution to God.
If you don't take religion literally, and you realize that science does not have all the answers, you realize they fit together quite nicely. People who think religion and science are in conflict confuse the questions. They think that religion answers "how" and science anwers "why," when really, the opposite is true.
Great discussion. Let's put more on it:
1. Darwin isn't totally right because...
2. Evolution (specially Human) had and sometimes has some help from outside. Both Religion and Science denies it (a
point in common).
Mene, mene, tekel, parsin
Quote by PlunkiesDuh. You can justify anything. No one is really saying your beliefs are unjustified, they're saying you're wrong.
I'm saying they're not justified and probably wrong...
Justify:
Quote by Dictionary.comTo demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.
Unjustified:
Quote by Dictionary.comLacking justification or authorization.
Quote by PlunkiesOccam's Razor. It's more logical to say that the universe has always existed, rather than god created the universe and god has always existed. With god you're just needlessly pushing the blame around.
You probably don't know about Occam's Razor, since you barely understand the concept of evidence, I'll
show you so you understand what Plunkies meant by this.
http://skepdic.com/occam.html
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
Basically, choose the most simplistic (least entities) idea to explain any phenomenon. It's one of my favorite principles because of how logical it is. ^_^
Quote by ShrinkNerv4EvaOn the surface there's a conflict between them, but a lot of scientists are religious. Darwin was raised in a very Christian household and kept his spirituality and at the end of his book, he attributed the genesis of evolution to God.
If you don't take religion literally, and you realize that science does not have all the answers, you realize they fit together quite nicely. People who think religion and science are in conflict confuse the questions. They think that religion answers "how" and science answers "why," when really, the opposite is true.
No, Science cannot go with religion. Religion = Belief in supernatural. Supernatural = Non-observable, non-empirical,
etc. Therefore religions cannot go along with Science. How many times do I need to post this for people to understand is
what I want to know.
You might also find it interesting to know that the personal beliefs of scientists, such as Darwin, does not change what Science is. If every scientist believed in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it wouldn't change what Science is nor what the requirements for Science are.
Quote by alexjohnc3
Quote by PlunkiesDuh. You can justify anything. No one is really saying your beliefs are unjustified, they're saying you're wrong.
I'm saying they're not justified and probably wrong...Justify:
Quote by Dictionary.comTo demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid.
Unjustified:
Quote by Dictionary.comLacking justification or authorization.
Nah I mean you can justify anything to yourself. Like I could slaughter my entire neighborhood with a chainsaw and then justify it by saying they were possessed by demons. They might not have been possessed but I've still justified it in my mind.
(not that I've ever done such a thing.........yet :) )
Quote by leonardobarbaGreat discussion. Let's put more on it:
1. Darwin isn't totally right because...
2. Evolution (specially Human) had and sometimes has some help from outside. Both Religion and Science denies it (a point in common).
First of all why did you number that? It could have all been one sentence.
And what do you mean by outside help? Outside of what?
To Mr.Plunkies:
Would you or would you not say that the evolutionary history of life is fact?
Quote by PlunkiesHeh, I love this. If you've been following this thread perso originally started out trying to prove his beliefs as facts or at least make them plausable in reality. At this point he's struggling simply to justify those beliefs within himself.
Yes I am stating that they are possible in reality and I have given reasons for them. (such as the real life accounts of people surviving few days after being swallowed by whales) No one should ever be afraid to question his beliefs, myself included. I would very much like to see each (and every) piece of plausable evidence that would question my beliefs, from both sides whenever possible.
This is a good argument, albeit one that depends on interpretation.
I also thank you also for asking some very good questions on how certain phenomenon are possible from a Biblical perspective. Such as "How can light get to us from stars which are millions of light-years away in a universe which the Bible claims is only thousands of years old?" and the best so far is your argument on radiometric dating.
It has been a pleasure save for you constant attempts to ridicule or insult me, and otherwise inhibit interllectual discussion.
To Mr.alexjohnc3:
Quote by alexjohnc31. Most gods can, if they exist, write.
Prove it.
Quote by alexjohnc3All of the cards are unique. You assume that you'll get a certain card beforehand, in which case probability applies, but if you get the card already you would then state, "Oh, that had a small chance of happening. Therefore God exists."
No matter what happened you would say that God did it because of the low probability of it occurring.
Since Mr.alexjohnc3 has trouble comprehending my position I will give another illustration.
You play coin toss with a stranger. You bet heads and he bets tails. However after 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tosses the coin came up tails every single time.
The result is clear, the coin came up tails each of the 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 times. If I were in this situation, I would believe that it was not by chance alone that this happened. To me, it is logical to believe so. And I choose to believe that it did not occur due to pure luck even though I have no evidence to prove it.
Mr.alexjohnc3 says that because I do not have evidence, my belief is illogical, and that Mr.Natrax who does not have "evidence" for the existance of god is also illogical.
Quote by NatraxAs far as the existance of god.........it's between your soul and the world. Look around you, I mean, really take a good look around, try to get a feel for it. Now, do you think god exists?
To Mr.Natrax, there is evidence that god exists in the world around him.
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" - Romans 1:20
I too would agree with Mr.Natrax.
However this evidence is not evidence to Mr.alexjohnc3, and so Mr.alexjohnc3 accuses both of us as being illogical.
Join us at http://christian-fellowship.minitokyo.net/
Well... Normally religion can't go well with science i would say...
Except for some religion...
For example a long time ago.. "Witches" were hunted by the church..
These so called witches are actually people who were scientific..They were able to explain why things happened in a
scientific way..& the way to change the colour of the solution by mixing different chemicals & solution
together..
They could think ahead of the people at the age...Unfortunately they wasn't accepted by the society...There was a
guy who was prosecuted by the church when he said that earth isn't the center of the universe..
The problem is that it wasn't accepted because it contradicts with what was stated a long time ago... But now
it's accepted by the people around the world as a fact..
So..In my opinion,i feel that actually religion & science will merge in time...
It just depends on how the people & individuals think in the future...
So far in many researches i've done... I find buddhism a religion that is the easiest to adapt to new changes...
(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
Quote by Persocom01To Mr.Plunkies: Do you or do you not believe that the evolutionary history of life is fact?
I think it's best to first define fact before answering this.
Fact - "Confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."
There's no such thing as an "absolute certainty" or a "perpetual truth" in the scientific world.
Having said that, evolution is a fact. This is not my opinion. This is the opinion of the extreme majority of the scientific community. There are no other alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand any kind of critical examination. What still needs clarification and more study are the MECHANISMS that bring about evolution.
"All living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history."
I say it one more time, EVOLUTION IS A FACT. It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no getting around it. All the faith in the world can't change the evidence.
Quote: Yes I am stating that they are possible in reality, and I have given reasons for them. No one should ever be afraid to question his beliefs, myself included. I would very much like to see each (and every) piece of plausable evidence that would question my beliefs, from both sides whenever possible.
The problem is I have disproven any possibility of noah's ark ever happening and you still believe it. How? Why?
Quote:
Quote by alexjohnc31. Most gods can, if they exist, write.
Prove it.
Uh the very definition of god is an all-powerful being. I'm pretty sure "writing" is included in all-powerful.
Quote:
Quote by alexjohnc3All of the cards are unique. You assume that you'll get a certain card beforehand, in which case probability applies, but if you get the card already you would then state, "Oh, that had a small chance of happening. Therefore God exists."
No matter what happened you would say that God did it because of the low probability of it occurring.
Since Mr.alexjohnc3 has trouble comprehending my position I will give another illustration.
You play coin toss with a stranger. You bet heads and he bets tails. However after 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 tosses the coin came up tails every single time.
The result is clear, the coin came up tails each of the 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 times. If I were in this situation, I would believe that it was not by chance alone that this happened. To me, it is logical to believe so. And I choose to believe that it did not occur due to pure luck even though I have no evidence to prove it.
Yet Mr.alexjohnc3 says that because I do not have evidence, my belief is illogical, and that Mr.Natrax who does not have "evidence" for the existance of god is also illogical.
Hrm. I see you also have trouble with metaphors. You have to establish a context. What represents all those coin toss conclusions? What's your point?
Quote: To Mr.Natrax, there is evidence that god exists in the world around him.
Yeah but that's not science, it's not logical, it's not anything. It is completely and utterly empty and meaningless. Vacuous. How many more ways can I explain it? Should I grab a thesaurus? Do you not understand where I'm coming from here?
Quote: However this evidence is not evidence to Mr.alexjohnc3, and so Mr.alexjohnc3 accuses both of us as being illogical.
Because it ISN'T logical. It's the complete freakin opposite of logic. Specious!(as Lisa would say)
In Cowboy Bebob, Londes said that "God did not create humans. Humans created God."
If you wanna find a guy who doesn't like naked girls. Go look for Prince Charming in some fairy tales!! ~ Ichitaka Seto
God is God. He rules over Science...
Science and God are compatiable... unfortunatly, most of the people who belive in Science, don't believe in God,
but... when you have biology in you 12th year of School, you'll realize those scientifical theories suck and that
God is the only explanations to all of that.
(Those morons tried to make us believe in a theory for the beginning of life that the only thing that it explain was the origin of the food for life, not life itself.)
.:Proud Hokage of Naruto:.
Quote by Blueheart(Those morons tried to make us believe in a theory for the beginning of life that the only thing that it explain was the origin of the food for life, not life itself.)
I find it ironic that you could call someone a moron in that sentence.
Quote: ... when you have biology in you 12th year of School, you'll realize those scientifical theories suck and that God is the only explanations to all of that.
Yes because 12th grade remedial biology is when you become an expert on all things "scientifical".
SCIENTIFICAL! HOLY CHRIST! I'm gonna go bang my head against the nearest wall I can find now.
I really just hope you have a hilarious, sarcastic sense of humor rather than actually being as mindnumbingly ignorant as your post seems to indicate.
"Because I don't like sience!"
:P
merged: 06-13-2006 ~ 03:45am
actually it's more because (without wanting to offend no one) Science is showing how liar God is (or how naive humans are) after all thunder is no more the wrath of God and Jesus actually
walked over ice plates (and not actual water in its liquid state).
But then again I'm sure Jesus and Moises would have liked Gallileu, Descartes and the ever so geniously briliant
Charles Darwin (who theorized that we came from apes instead from arguile expeld from the ever so boring paradise :P)
and some other nice guys along history who simply showed how God is so Omnipresently not so present. Get my
drift?
God, how I love Science! :P
page 5 of 9 « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next » 196 total items
Back to Religion & Science | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.
