Think of it like this: you are going to buy a car, but the salesperson isn't showing you the car. He wants you to take it on faith that this car is just what you wanted, and pulls out service records for the car (that's all fine and good, but he still hasn't shown a car to match these records). He says that if you want the car that you haven't seen yet, you will have to believe he's selling it, and hand him 20 grand. This is the same situation with god. No evidence for either, and its a pretty waste if it turns out neither exists.
Well tis is all in your opinion. One thing I would say is that it is better to just believe in something and then it ends up to be true then it is to not believe in something and it ends up false.
Well this is my Last post of the night Good night world.
And a actual really enjoy science and it is my favorite subject in School but when you try to disprove Religion with science it just kinda makes me frustrated.
Why would it? It sounds like you're just turtling. Einstein isn't a Zerg.
Fun fact, no sane country has this kind of religious undertone in its politics EXCEPT America.
And the Middle East. Just sayin'.
Religion, however, has done it the other way around, which makes it rather inaccurate.
On Friday, I'm giving a quick speech on fallacies for my communications class. This reversal is a formal (structural) fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent". As a logical argument, it's invalid.
it is better to just believe in something and then it ends up to be true then it is to not believe in something and it ends up false.
You're directly opposing every other god by claiming a specific one is correct. That's not a neutral stance. What makes opposition a good thing, as opposed to neutrality?
He said sane country. Not to debase ME nations, but given the context, I'm pretty sure sane translates as ''democratic, transparent, and generally "Western-centric" ".
[quote] the choice was rigged from the very beginning to not benefit the players of god's game.
As the plantation owner I'm given y'all a choice, You can either continue here toiling in my fields or I can shoot you dead right now.[/quote]
Just noticed this most of my post here vanished. Unfortunately I don't remember everything I typed.
Well if you are here to show me that nothing is what it seems then wouldn't you be talking about how true God is.
God being true is also not what it seems. You're using a feeling to determine that the particular God you follow is real. There are others with feeling that some other god is real. What's the difference between the two of you? You can't both be right.
Well In Religion the Evidence is just the spirt and knowing that it is true. The Spirt is often felt when someone talks on a church subject and starts to cry that is the spirt.
Think is you don't know, you just think that's what you're feeling. You have nothing to determine that what you're feeling in this instance is in fact the spirit.
I just wanted to see your reaction.
That just makes you sound like a troll.
Sorry that I said that wrong I am jut saying that some people here are acting like science is just the Key to everything that has ever existed.
Science in the most general sense is knowledge, more specifically as we usually use the term it refers to the method in which we use to gain that knowledge. It is a method that has proven to be the best we have. We can potentially use to such an extent.
But here's the thing if we have no evidence to go by we have no reason to believe that something exists, regardless of if it does or not.
And a actual really enjoy science and it is my favorite subject in School but when you try to disprove Religion with science it just kinda makes me frustrated.
If your God is real and he has interacted with reality that puts God in the realm of science.
How about someone who consistently uses the same arguments that have already been shown to be faulty again and again for frustrating?
Well tis is all in your opinion. One thing I would say is that it is better to just believe in something and then it ends up to be true then it is to not believe in something and it ends up false.
Or we can wait til something is demonstrated to be true, THEN believe in it. What if you believe in something and it ends up false?
How about someone who consistently uses the same arguments that have already been shown to be faulty again and again for frustrating?
"insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time"-Einstein
Well tis is all in your opinion. One thing I would say is that it is better to just believe in something and then it ends up to be true then it is to not believe in something and it ends up false.
to extend the car metaphor, I'd leave the dealership, and go to one that actually shows me the car. in this case, it's science. it's better to see the car before you buy so you know what you are paying for, instead of thinking the car is perfect for you with no prior confirmation, or actual evidence to confirm this. this is another one of the things I've been trying to tell you: look before you leap.
interesting. this would mean that evolution would always happen the same way. but it doesn't...
If you were able to reproduce all the same selective factors on the same organisms you could reproduce the exact same evolutionary processes. Though the ability to reproduce all such parameters would be nearly impossible, resulting in differences each time. Though under similar ecological conditions you do see similar traits arise independently. This is a process known as convergent evolution.
What the freak, what is the definition of a troll not the ones in LOTR but the one you just called me. You really sound like a no lifer right now.
If your God is real and he has interacted with reality that puts God in the realm of science.
Well if God made Science would Science be in the realm of God?
God being true is also not what it seems. You're using a feeling to determine that the particular God you follow is real. There are others with feeling that some other god is real. What's the difference between the two of you? You can't both be right.
In that post i was just saying that one day if you get to heaven and you did not believed in god and all well your chances of going to the Celestial Kingdom is not that good.
"insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time"-Einstein
Interesting. this would mean that evolution would always happen the same way. but it doesn't...
I do not think that would fit in the category they are talking about. If we went back in time. The same animals would not reproduce some Mass extinctions would not happen and Some animals would go extinct before they where meant to.
What the freak, what is the definition of a troll not the ones in LOTR but the one you just called me. You really sound like a no lifer right now.
Internet Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
I wasn't exactly calling you a troll, just the way you replied there sounded as such.
Well if God made Science would Science be in the realm of God?
Science (the methodology) wasn't created by God. It's a process we developed through philosophy. Some would argue that science is still a form of philosophy, though I would say it's developed to be something more.
In that post i was just saying that one day if you get to heaven and you did not believed in god and all well your chances of going to the Celestial Kingdom is not that good.
That doesn't address anything I said there, please try again.
Specifically "What's the difference between the two of you? You can't both be right." can you answer that question?
