100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Big Bang Debunked? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Wed 02/05/14 09:50 AM
|
|
can you present any evidence of there being a god? not looking at the sky and making presumptions, but actual, tangible evidence? anything besides a "feeling" it might be there? Why on God's green earth would I want to repeat myself? If you could trouble yourself to read what I have posted, you'd have your answer. copy and paste? takes about 3 second to do... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can you present any evidence of there being a god? not looking at the sky and making presumptions, but actual, tangible evidence? anything besides a "feeling" it might be there? Why on God's green earth would I want to repeat myself? If you could trouble yourself to read what I have posted, you'd have your answer. lol, my point exactly...i guess thats why there are so many scientists that "study" god... whats the latest god theory now? sorry, i don't think you have a good grasp on scientific theory... Good science isn't based on consensus, nor is it a popularity contest. How many scientists were studying Quantum theory 200 years ago? None? Welp, that means Quantum theory is bunk. How many scientists were studying Plate Tectonics 500 years ago? None? Welp, now we have our proof that the earth's plates have never moved. The point, in case you aren't getting the sarcasm, is that just because the majority or even a significant minority of scientists aren't pursuing a particular theory, doesn't mean the theory isn't true. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can you present any evidence of there being a god? not looking at the sky and making presumptions, but actual, tangible evidence? anything besides a "feeling" it might be there? Why on God's green earth would I want to repeat myself? If you could trouble yourself to read what I have posted, you'd have your answer. copy and paste? takes about 3 second to do... Three seconds which I'd never get back and effort for which I wouldn't be thanked. If you really wanted the answer, you'd look at my past posts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can you present any evidence of there being a god? not looking at the sky and making presumptions, but actual, tangible evidence? anything besides a "feeling" it might be there? Why on God's green earth would I want to repeat myself? If you could trouble yourself to read what I have posted, you'd have your answer. lol, my point exactly...i guess thats why there are so many scientists that "study" god... whats the latest god theory now? sorry, i don't think you have a good grasp on scientific theory... Good science isn't based on consensus, nor is it a popularity contest. How many scientists were studying Quantum theory 200 years ago? None? Welp, that means Quantum theory is bunk. How many scientists were studying Plate Tectonics 500 years ago? None? Welp, now we have our proof that the earth's plates have never moved. The point, in case you aren't getting the sarcasm, is that just because the majority or even a significant minority of scientists aren't pursuing a particular theory, doesn't mean the theory isn't true. lol, and i guess you forget the church outlawed any science that didn't glorify god back then... think of where we would be scientifically right now if the church wasn't involved back then... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, and i guess you forget the church outlawed any science that didn't glorify god back then... think of where we would be scientifically right now if the church wasn't involved back then... Two words: Historical Revisionism. Two more words: Back when? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol, and i guess you forget the church outlawed any science that didn't glorify god back then... think of where we would be scientifically right now if the church wasn't involved back then... Two words: Historical Revisionism. yea, thats what all the religious folk say... have you studied it at all, or are you saying what your religious dogma programed you to say? just wondering... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Enkoodabaoo
on
Wed 02/05/14 10:22 AM
|
|
yea, thats what all the religious folk say... have you studied it at all, or are you saying what your religious dogma programed you to say? just wondering... Christianity has taught me to question everything and demand proof. I want to know during what time period did the Catholic church "outlawed any science that didn't glorify god" and when was "back then"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yea, thats what all the religious folk say... have you studied it at all, or are you saying what your religious dogma programed you to say? just wondering... Christianity has taught to question everything and demand proof. I want to know during what time period did the Catholic church "outlawed any science that didn't glorify god" and when was "back then"? is that what the church teaches you? religious dogma...thanks for the clarification... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is that what the church teaches you? religious dogma...thanks for the clarification... You admit you can't answer my question, which means your point is invalid. Why would anyone make a historical claim knowing that he can't back it up? Don't bother replying, I don't plan to say anything else to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
is that what the church teaches you? religious dogma...thanks for the clarification... You admit you can't answer my question, which means your point is invalid. Why would anyone make a historical claim knowing that he can't back it up? Don't bother replying, I don't plan to say anything else to you. since the church taught you to "Question everything", did they inform you of google search? you can look it up as easy as i can, so you can answer your own question... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a scientist discovered a new bacteria, he or she would describe it, and present photographs these days, yet they would not have to do all sorts of extra research on the details of it's evolution or peculiarities of biochemistry before publishing their findings. This has been a pretty interesting thread. The contrasts between science and religions are often presented, but I think that ultimately science also requires a level of faith. You need faith in the scientific method, that observations can be trustworthy, and that logic is applicable. In any system of thought or belief there are going to be assumptions, premisses or matters of faith to get the ball rolling, and, since so many different ideas could be in our initial assumptions or points of faith, could we ever know which is the more "correct" or accurate system? I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with other parts. This idea that religion and science are opposed, that's only held by people who are uneducated on both. Science describes the natural world, religion the supernatural world. Ain't no conflict in believing in both, regardless of what those who never cracked a Bible open in their life would tell you. If you accept that both worlds may exist, it's not a question of which system is more accurate, it becomes a question of if you will follow the evidence where it leads. This makes sense to me, I think I see your point. Yet I have some education in religion (perhaps not enough) and the idea that religion describes the supernatural world seems radical. This would suggest that the vast majority of mainstream Christians are uneducated in religion, since they interpret the book of Genesis, for example, as a literal account of the creation of the physical universe and human origins. This leads to the clash with scientific descriptions. My own take on it would agree with Cambell, that the bible is a myth and it was originally understood as a profound metaphor that pointed towards a transcendent insight, and this would be supernatural. The Gnostics had this understanding, and it was mystical, so similar to Eastern religions. What do you think about this? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newton would be a good example of a religious man going against the dogma of his religion to discover science in a most basic way. No he wouldn't. Newton's writings on science are only outweighed by his writings on religion. That's like saying a man is leaving his wife because he goes to work for eight hours a day. In Newton's time, theology was called the queen of the sciences. Every western scientist was also a theologian, at least in training, if not practice. There is only one reason to study the laws of the universe: you believe in the law maker. Newton's writings on science are not outweighed by anything. He is considered one of the (if not the) greatest scientific minds in human history. His writings on religion are odd, to say the least. He also studied alchemy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a scientist discovered a new bacteria, he or she would describe it, and present photographs these days, yet they would not have to do all sorts of extra research on the details of it's evolution or peculiarities of biochemistry before publishing their findings. This has been a pretty interesting thread. The contrasts between science and religions are often presented, but I think that ultimately science also requires a level of faith. You need faith in the scientific method, that observations can be trustworthy, and that logic is applicable. In any system of thought or belief there are going to be assumptions, premisses or matters of faith to get the ball rolling, and, since so many different ideas could be in our initial assumptions or points of faith, could we ever know which is the more "correct" or accurate system? I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with other parts. This idea that religion and science are opposed, that's only held by people who are uneducated on both. Science describes the natural world, religion the supernatural world. Ain't no conflict in believing in both, regardless of what those who never cracked a Bible open in their life would tell you. If you accept that both worlds may exist, it's not a question of which system is more accurate, it becomes a question of if you will follow the evidence where it leads. This makes sense to me, I think I see your point. Yet I have some education in religion (perhaps not enough) and the idea that religion describes the supernatural world seems radical. This would suggest that the vast majority of mainstream Christians are uneducated in religion, since they interpret the book of Genesis, for example, as a literal account of the creation of the physical universe and human origins. This leads to the clash with scientific descriptions. My own take on it would agree with Cambell, that the bible is a myth and it was originally understood as a profound metaphor that pointed towards a transcendent insight, and this would be supernatural. The Gnostics had this understanding, and it was mystical, so similar to Eastern religions. What do you think about this? The supernatural created the natural, therefore the Book of Genesis can be taken as historical. I don't agree with Campbell, I feel that comparative mythology has been thoroughly debunked. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newton would be a good example of a religious man going against the dogma of his religion to discover science in a most basic way. No he wouldn't. Newton's writings on science are only outweighed by his writings on religion. That's like saying a man is leaving his wife because he goes to work for eight hours a day. In Newton's time, theology was called the queen of the sciences. Every western scientist was also a theologian, at least in training, if not practice. There is only one reason to study the laws of the universe: you believe in the law maker. Newton's writings on science are not outweighed by anything. He is considered one of the (if not the) greatest scientific minds in human history. His writings on religion are odd, to say the least. He also studied alchemy. It should have been obvious that I was speaking in quantitative terms, since qualitative is subjective. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newton would be a good example of a religious man going against the dogma of his religion to discover science in a most basic way. No he wouldn't. Newton's writings on science are only outweighed by his writings on religion. That's like saying a man is leaving his wife because he goes to work for eight hours a day. In Newton's time, theology was called the queen of the sciences. Every western scientist was also a theologian, at least in training, if not practice. There is only one reason to study the laws of the universe: you believe in the law maker. Newton's writings on science are not outweighed by anything. He is considered one of the (if not the) greatest scientific minds in human history. His writings on religion are odd, to say the least. He also studied alchemy. It should have been obvious that I was speaking in quantitative terms, since qualitative is subjective. Then it simply makes you wrong on both counts. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a scientist discovered a new bacteria, he or she would describe it, and present photographs these days, yet they would not have to do all sorts of extra research on the details of it's evolution or peculiarities of biochemistry before publishing their findings. This has been a pretty interesting thread. The contrasts between science and religions are often presented, but I think that ultimately science also requires a level of faith. You need faith in the scientific method, that observations can be trustworthy, and that logic is applicable. In any system of thought or belief there are going to be assumptions, premisses or matters of faith to get the ball rolling, and, since so many different ideas could be in our initial assumptions or points of faith, could we ever know which is the more "correct" or accurate system? I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with other parts. This idea that religion and science are opposed, that's only held by people who are uneducated on both. Science describes the natural world, religion the supernatural world. Ain't no conflict in believing in both, regardless of what those who never cracked a Bible open in their life would tell you. If you accept that both worlds may exist, it's not a question of which system is more accurate, it becomes a question of if you will follow the evidence where it leads. This makes sense to me, I think I see your point. Yet I have some education in religion (perhaps not enough) and the idea that religion describes the supernatural world seems radical. This would suggest that the vast majority of mainstream Christians are uneducated in religion, since they interpret the book of Genesis, for example, as a literal account of the creation of the physical universe and human origins. This leads to the clash with scientific descriptions. My own take on it would agree with Cambell, that the bible is a myth and it was originally understood as a profound metaphor that pointed towards a transcendent insight, and this would be supernatural. The Gnostics had this understanding, and it was mystical, so similar to Eastern religions. What do you think about this? The supernatural created the natural, therefore the Book of Genesis can be taken as historical. I don't agree with Campbell, I feel that comparative mythology has been thoroughly debunked. lol, i think the supernatural scientists are called "ghostbusters"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Newton would be a good example of a religious man going against the dogma of his religion to discover science in a most basic way. No he wouldn't. Newton's writings on science are only outweighed by his writings on religion. That's like saying a man is leaving his wife because he goes to work for eight hours a day. In Newton's time, theology was called the queen of the sciences. Every western scientist was also a theologian, at least in training, if not practice. There is only one reason to study the laws of the universe: you believe in the law maker. Newton's writings on science are not outweighed by anything. He is considered one of the (if not the) greatest scientific minds in human history. His writings on religion are odd, to say the least. He also studied alchemy. It should have been obvious that I was speaking in quantitative terms, since qualitative is subjective. Then it simply makes you wrong on both counts. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Enkoodabaoo
on
Mon 02/10/14 09:57 AM
|
|
Then it simply makes you wrong on both counts. I was only wrong in thinking that you could understand the obvious meaning of what I posted. Newton's writings on religion DO outnumber his writings on science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Enkoodabaoo
on
Mon 02/10/14 10:05 AM
|
|
The supernatural created the natural, therefore the Book of Genesis can be taken as historical. I don't agree with Campbell, I feel that comparative mythology has been thoroughly debunked. lol, i think the supernatural scientists are called "ghostbusters"... I made no mention of "supernatural scientists", such a person would be a contradiction in terms. The fact that you even think such a person could exist shows how little you understand the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The supernatural created the natural, therefore the Book of Genesis can be taken as historical. I don't agree with Campbell, I feel that comparative mythology has been thoroughly debunked. lol, i think the supernatural scientists are called "ghostbusters"... I made no mention of "supernatural scientists", such a person is a contradiction in terms. The fact that you even think such a person could exist shows how little you understand the subject. look, i don't really care what you believe or don't believe, you are an intelligent guy, it's obvious... but i think science, not religion, as the future of everything... just my opinion, but i think religion doesn't even have a place in our schools, lives, or anything else other than a good way to live your life... |
|
|
|
|
