A
AlbertBall
Guest
I tell you what heres a better idea, why don’t you go and read a high school science book. look up the word hypothesis, Off you go now.
How do thiests reconcile the contradictions for God's existence?
- Status
A
AlbertBall
Guest
You are also wrong to include Continental drift. Also i do not need to ask what you mean bu evidence, for you are talking about science, therefore we are talking about scientific evidence. What you consider evidence is irrelevant. Just because we do not have a complete understanding of planet formation, does NOT mean we do not have any evidence for it… In fact here is some, (note. i am not saying conclusive but it does match predictions and it is supporting evidence)…
http://www.lpt.ups-tlse.fr/local/cache-vignettes/L570xH680/OriProp4-bc760.jpg
T
Thing
Guest
Ah yes… so I will do so, would that you would alsoI tell you what heres a better idea, why don’t you go and read a high school science book. look up the word hypothesis, Off you go now.
hypothesis
is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, ὑποτιθέναι – hypotithenai meaning “to put under” or “to suppose.” For a hypothesis to be put forward as a *scientific *hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.
Is your brain not a material scientific instrument? Do not all scientific tests pass through your brain for further analysis. You ask this creator god for evidence imput into your personal material scientific instrument for further analysis.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Oh dear,
uch:.Why on earth would i need to have formulated any theory for myself? See here is the thing that those who are not educated in science often misunderstand. The whole point of science is WE CAN rely on the knowledge of others, for that knowledge MUST BE DEMONSTRABLE! That is why is MUST BE DEMONSTRABLE! So yes i am accepting the knowledge of others, AS WE ALL DO, however i am only accepting it because its validity has been DEMONSTRATED! In fact success of science comes down to its ability to accept and build upon the knowledge of others!
This is NOTHING LIKE accepting testimony, i do not accept it because the scientist says so, that would not only be utterly absurd, but actually defeat the purpose of science. That is why scientists must clearly outline their back ground research, experiments, test conditions, results etc. All of which are repeated MULTIPLE times by other scientists who are looking falsify the hypothesis of the first scientist.
To claim “i just happen to trust or have faith in” shows a complete lack of understanding when it come to science.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
I am not even sure what you are trying to say here? No, my brain is not a scientific instrument. No, scientific tests do not pass through my brain for further analysis, the result do.
*“You ask this creator god for evidence impute into your personal material scientific instrument for further analysis” *
Errr???
Personal experience is subjective, how could one possible hope to verify the source of such “evidence”?
T
Thing
Guest
Al,
If the source is really your creator then He *will *verify that to your satisfaction. Do-not-worry.
An alternative might be;
Considering that He spoke to the 3 wise men in a dream, & He spoke to St Joseph in a dream. If more than one persons dreams are true about the same thing… eh viola!.. verification of something. If the subject is specific to God… need we say more.
Here is a scientific opportunity for you to be the first scientificy person to verify God scientifically through dreams - if you cannot trust your own brain.
Some Scientificy stuff
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
So you have actually done the experiments yourself and worked out the equations?Oh dear,
Why on earth would i need to have formulated any theory for myself? See here is the thing that those who are not educated in science often misunderstand. The whole point of science is WE CAN rely on the knowledge of others, for that knowledge MUST BE DEMONSTRABLE! That is why is MUST BE DEMONSTRABLE! So yes i am accepting the knowledge of others, AS WE ALL DO, however i am only accepting it because its validity has been DEMONSTRATED! In fact success of science comes down to its ability to accept and build upon the knowledge of others!
This is NOTHING LIKE accepting testimony, i do not accept it because the scientist says so, that would not only be utterly absurd, but actually defeat the purpose of science. That is why scientists must clearly outline their back ground research, experiments, test conditions, results etc. All of which are repeated MULTIPLE times by other scientists who are looking falsify the hypothesis of the first scientist.
To claim “i just happen to trust or have faith in” shows a complete lack of understanding when it come to science.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
All experience is personal.
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Did you even read the post?
A
AlbertBall
Guest
Even if i had spiritual experience my critical analysis skills are developed enough to understand that the experience would a have no bearing on the validity of the existence of a god.
Oh, and how do have you verified that he spoke to 3 wise men in a dream?
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I just want a direct answer without diversion. Have you done the experiments and worked out the equations?Did you even read the post?
T
Thing
Guest
He told them Herod was waiting to capture them, they went home the long way.
But ask Him yourself, you don’t need to take anyone elses word for it.
Y
yppop
Guest
Wonderful photos that the Hubble produces! I’ve studied them intensely and I can’t find where they show a planet being formed. Would you kindly point that out to me because, after all, our argument is about evidence?
I am not sure you get what I am saying; so let me give it to you in other words: even though there is no evidence that demonstrates the formation of planets, I believe that the proto-planet version of the nebular hypothesis/theory is legitimate science because it is the most plausible explanation of the observed facts.
In post #94 I concluded that since there is much science that is based on plausible explanations without evidence, my belief in the existence of God, in addition to my faith, is based on the only plausible explanation - the Big Bang (creation from nothing). I contend that the plausibility of God’s existence carries as much intellectual weight as do many hypotheses/theories that become science on the basis of plausibility.
Now as an atheist, I know you must adhere to the first principle of atheism: “If you believe in God, you must be stupid.” And what must be especially disconcerting to an atheist is running into someone that not only believes in and has a working knowledge of science, but also believes in God. So when you write: as in post #99, “Anyone that thinks there is the same evidence for evolution as there is for god is not someone I care to have a discussion with”; or as in post #110 “You are incorrect in your claim there is no evidence for planet formation. I’m can’t be bothered spoon feeding it to you” I feel that these kind of responses implies a condescension to mask the lack of knowledge or a deeper uncertainty about one’s core beliefs.
So, here is a chance to change my opinion, since there is no evidence that God exists or that God doesn’t exist, and since an atheist is dogmatic about latter, why don’t you give me a plausible explanation of how creation happened without God. Please, no multi-universe theories and remember post #96 where you wrote: “A hypothesis by definition must be testable.”
For my part, I have never been satisfied with the “goddidit” (see post#83) response that non-believers use to mock belief in God, so I construct a plausible model to explain how God exists in our lives, ontologically, biologically, and teleologically. You may get a sense of the ontological part of my thesis from a thread now receding into the sunset on page 14 of this forum entitled, “*God Exists, but How”? *
Have a Happy Easter
Yppop
S
SonofMonica
Guest
He won’t answer the question without diversion, because it leads to obvious errors in his line of thinking. This is most recently and easily demonstrated by the fact that global warming folks fudged the data to hide the fact that no warming was occurring. Just because the results of a test are publishable doesn’t mean they are demonstrable in the slightest. There is no way to go back and demonstrate the results of a historical test due to the linearity of time and changing of conditions. This is why repeatability, not demonstrability, is important in science. And this is why his argument fails. Hearsay is important, and necessary, to a functioning model of anything.
T
traillius
Guest
It would be the most plausible explanation for them to have altered their route so as to avoid the king. Its not as if someone else would have spied on the king, and told them. There would be no other reason for them suddenly to do so. Since very few knew that jesus was the promised one, at the time of his birth, no one else would attach significance to herod’s threats, because no one else would care. The jews wouldn’t say it, because they supported herod. Gentiles wouldn’t even get involved, if they even knew, which is doubtful. Barring any other explanation, we can only go with the one that is offered by someone who would actually have an informed opinion. That would be the writer of the gospel who stated that they were warned in a dream, and returned by another route.
A
Abu
Guest
Those far removed from reality are unable to comprehend reality.
They blindly reject the eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (which as reader I was able to offer on Easter Sunday at Mass), and couldn’t understand the eyewitness accounts of the Miracle at Fatima!
As Avelino deAlmeida, the chief editor of “O Seculo,” the large “liberal” anticlerical and masonic daily of Lisbon, writes:
Before the dazzled eyes of the people, whose attitude transported us to biblical times, and who, dumb-founded, heads uncovered, contemplated the blue of the sky, the sun trembled, it mad estrange and abrupt movements, outside of all cosmic laws, “the sun danced”, according to the typical expression of the peasants…(2)"
Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony, fifteen days later, in his review, l’“Ilustra‡ao Portuguesa”. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw…I saw…I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: "Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church.”.(3) [My emphasis].
Note:
2) O Seculo of October 15, 1917.
3) Article of October 29, 1917.
They blindly reject the eyewitness accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (which as reader I was able to offer on Easter Sunday at Mass), and couldn’t understand the eyewitness accounts of the Miracle at Fatima!
As Avelino deAlmeida, the chief editor of “O Seculo,” the large “liberal” anticlerical and masonic daily of Lisbon, writes:
Before the dazzled eyes of the people, whose attitude transported us to biblical times, and who, dumb-founded, heads uncovered, contemplated the blue of the sky, the sun trembled, it mad estrange and abrupt movements, outside of all cosmic laws, “the sun danced”, according to the typical expression of the peasants…(2)"
Attacked violently by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony, fifteen days later, in his review, l’“Ilustra‡ao Portuguesa”. This time he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the huge ecstatic crowd, and repeated as a refrain throughout his article: “I saw…I saw…I saw.” And he concluded fortuitously: "Miracle, as the people shouted? Natural phenomenon, as the experts say? For the moment, that does not concern me, I am only saying what I saw… The rest is a matter for Science and the Church.”.(3) [My emphasis].
Note:
2) O Seculo of October 15, 1917.
3) Article of October 29, 1917.
B
Bohm_Bawerk
Guest
I’ve been reading David Hume, and this post is so true!
Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
B
benedictus2
Guest
Huh
Isn’t that exactly what those proofs you mentioned are going for - just proofs for the existence of a generic God? The proofs you mentioned are not attempts at proving the Christian God but simply God so I don’t know how that comment is supposed to be a rational assessment of the matter.
That’s not quite right. They are proofs for monotheism not pantheism. So no, not any god.
Pray tell who is arguing for the God of the Bible? I thought the OP was quite clear that the argument was simply for or against theism.
You are ranting about something that have not even been hinted at.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Simply Brilliant. Excellently put :clapping::clapping::clapping:
B
benedictus2
Guest
I love what Alice Von Hildebrand said to a student who insisted that he will believe in god if he can see him in a microscope. She said : when that happens I will become an atheist
A Being who we claim to be Supernatural has to be beyond the natural.
A Being who we claim to be Supernatural has to be beyond the natural.
- Status