*he *gets it. whew.
awesome name, btw.
My post was the one immediately following yours. Did you put an invisible one in between them?
You sure did not.
You originally posted:
To which Candyman74 responded with this:
Now how does this:
answer Candyman’s point # 1? Cohesion/unifying theories =/= Proving/disproving God
Demanding someone to provide evidence for the existence of ANYTHING is absolutely appropriate. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.
Is anyone actually doing that here? What a stupid observation!
No, you wrote this:
Which, as has been pointed out, is a load of dingo’s kidneys. Science will never “prove that there is no god”, because
a) it has no desire to do so, and
b) more importantly, science does not (and can not) prove a negative assertion.
gee, it almost sounds like theology/philosophy and science don’t really mesh.
funny, that.
btw no one will ever prove there’s a christain god, either. why do you keep poking that bear…?
yes. or exactly what is it you’re demanding i defend…?
what i laid out was a philosophy. one that i said was personal and that i would never try to convince anyone else of. one that affects nothing and no one.
yet countless posts since have been demanding i lay it out so science can disprove it.
“set up your pins! we so badly want to knock them down!”
ok, knock yourself out.
it’s a philosophy. how much more humble could i possibly be? i said from the get-go there’s no evidence because it’s a philosophy. and yet how many times have you all demand i provide my evidence…? it’s like you just don’t read.
i’ve stated over and over again it’s something that makes sense to me and it’s just a method for me to digest the nature of reality.
exactly what else do you want from me…?
You guys realize you’re debating someone who, if things get too hot, can just turn around and say “hey… don’t be so jumpy”.
Discussion. This is a messageboard, not your blog. If you post something, people reply to it. That’s how it works.
great. reply.
tell me, what is your end game?
i have a philosophical belief in something that is nothing more than an augmentary device that helps me, ME and JUST ME process and grasp reality.
i believe in science. my philosophy jibes just dandily with science. and oh look, science is intently devoted to theories that absolutely coincide with what i believe.
i admit there is as of yet no evidence for “god” that would be satisfactory to shut up anyone who disbelieves. i pointed this out from the first post. which, my post was directed at a christian. that’s a major important factor.
i set out from square one it’s personal, affecting nothing and no one, and impossible to impart on anyone else, equally impossible to prove or disprove.
what’s your goal…?
what do you need to convince me of? that science is real? because: check.
is that there’s no proof of God? CHECK. we KNOW.
what do you need to accomplish…? what satisfaction is it you seek so desperately…?
guh. seriously. “he said ‘god!’ GANG TACKLE”
What the hell…?
I didn’t understand a word of that. It’s barely English. I don’t have an “end game”, whatever that is. I merely had some observations on your suggestion that “science” (he lives in my street) disprove God.
uh huh.
I have not poked anyone or anything.
I have never asked that anyone prove there is a Christian God. Because it cannot be done, and there is no point to the question.
I was merely pointing out that when you said:
It showed that you have a fundamental lack of knowledge about what science is concerned with, and what it actually does (ie it cannot “prove” that mythological beings do not exist)
ETA: u mad bro?
yeah. i’m mad and i don’t know what science is. derp derp derp. and that’s what i said, that science is tirelessly working to disprove christians. never mind i was talking about the theory of everything and if some fundamental piece of data comes along that totally steps on my beliefs, i’ll side with science.
no, i think science is just working on disproving Gods. thanks for setting me straight.
let’s all just ignore how hammy demanded i “prove” what i believe and demand i put my beliefs out to be hacked away.
never mind all that.
Czar and all
I am going to try to answer the “bible” questions first and then get to the matter at hand.
I have no problem with your definition I would extend it to say Christianity is following the precepts of Christ as laid out in the New Testament.
The authoritative body would Christ himself and only His judgement will matter in the end. I could right realms on what I believe right but I dont think this thread is the proper place but let me say the fact that He is going to judge in the end means (at least to me) that there are no hard and fast rules that keep you in or kick you out.
This does not mean I cannot decide for myself if a particular person is making an attempt to follow a Christian life.
I do not decide who gets a plumbers licenses but if one shows up at the door with a hammer in one hand and a chainsaw in the other he/she is not working on my shower. Or to put it another way if Rommney declares he is a liberal tommorrow but he plans on using the same political platform as before will you accept that he is a liberal?
This is common sense but it is also scriptural Mattew 7:20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
Also false religions (of the Judeo-Christian variety) were also predicted.
1 Timothy 4:1&2 1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth
Uh-huh… and how should that be applied to, say, national energy policy?
-
I am pro creationism but it is something I struggle with. My motive was to learn and to see if my thoughts and ideas are valid based on if I can mount a decent defense of them or not.
-
If I knew that there was no creator I would still find BBT a 50/50 proposition at best. Let me say here though that in order for the science to progress there has to be some framework to test ideas and BBT would be the best one out there.
I have no problem with science why would I ? It is just a tool in fact if I use science in a different way we usually call it troubleshooting. If there is water coming out from under the house I simply make sure there is no water running in the house and go look at the water meter. If it is moving I have a leak if it is not perhaps I have some kind of drainage problem.
I do have a problem with a few scientists and atheists who try to make people believe that science has proved there is no creator.
-
More often than not.
-
No not in the sense that you defined it. In fact many believe it does not contardict the bible. IMO most bible verses can and do have a literal and figurative meaning.
I am moving as fast as I can Bryan and I really want to get back to the subject of the thread but you have asked some good questions and make some good comments and they deserve a response.
The “willfull ignorance” you speak of is a consequence of God’s law being twisted we have not been asked to stick our heads in the sand or lie in debates. In fact we have been asked to do just the opposite. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
I am sorry (in a general kind of way) Bryan that so many have lied too, massacered and persecuted those who did not believe what they did. Whatever their motives they were as wrong as wrong can be. I have watched several debates on atheisim, exsistence of God etc. and in all but one debate both sides IMO lied. It is really not good for an atheist to lie to prove a point it shows a lack of confidence in his/her ideas. But for someone to claim to be a Christian and lie to prove their point is many times worse.
Science does work. Secular law obviously does not but it cannot be replaced by God’s law. The "why’ should become readily apparent in a moment.
My New King James New Testament has 181,253 words and a very small part of it is history but the rest is explaining the recommended ways of following the only two commandments that Jesus left us with. Yep that right just two and no you cannot legislate them so I am not “one of those”
Matthew 22 37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Since I have doubts about converting you we dont really need to concern ourselves with the first law too much. Suffice it to say this is were baptism, communion etc come in. We do certain acts as homage to God. But we also take care of God’s creation as part of showing our love for Him. So conservation, universal health care and the like should be part of the religious rights agenda…sadly they are not. BTW who does a guy like me vote for…there really is no “lesser evil” in my world view.
The second law though would fix a great many of our problems even if they didnt believe in the lawgiver. Even if we could get say 50% to follow it how much would it change things? If I love you just as much as I love myself I am only going to do the things which will help you.
And of course you see why it cannot be legislated.
Well I hope I at least suprised you and that you may understand what Chesterton was getting at a little better.
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried”
Whew we have gotten far afield I am going to try to get back on track by answering some of Marleys comments and querys and Hamster left me something about inflation that was very interesting on the first page…I will try to get to all.
BTW Bryan I am not reading you wrong in considering you an atheist am I?
In any case atheist often promote the idea of “free thinking” and it is an excellent ideal.
I was raised in this “faith” but most of the ideas I am expounding were not taught to me and came to me only after putting the notions placed in my head aside and doing my best to let the bible tell me what it says instead of trying to wrap scripture around what I already thought.
These days I try to give science and bible study half of my free time each.
What is it with you people and the BBT? BBT could have been how God created the universe just as a non-BBT theory could be consistent with there being no God. Creationism and evolution have nothing to do with the BBT either.
The only conflict between science and religion occurs when you ignore facts. We have physical evidence, perhaps left by God himself, that shows complex life evolved from simpler life. It’s not open to opinion any more than the acceleration of gravity is. If you want to believe that God directed evolution more power to you, but maintaining that man was specially created by God out of whole cloth, rather than evolving from earlier hominids, is just inconsistent with the facts.
Likewise, we see that everything in the universe is moving away from everything else in the universe. Extrapolate back and you a singularity at some point. What’s the alternative? I just don’t get it. Sure we have lots of room to hypothesize exactly how the Big Bang played out and whether it will all collapse back at some point, but that has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
Stop trying to create a God vs BBT dichotomy where none exists.