With all due respect, I don’t want to humour you, by saying that I understand what you are saying that would be disingenuous, if not patronising. I understand that to you it makes sense. I imagine that it is hard if one is indoctrinated to think objectively.
I am not indoctrinated to think any way. I have actually acquired my way of thinking personally, through reason. I found the Church to perfectly conform to those things I considered realistic.
I follow what you are saying, but it is classic pseudo science.
And that somehow disproves it? How, exactly, do you determine what is correct and incorrect? Your personal opinion?
Again, I appreciate that you are bound by your doctrine and can’t stray to far from the path. I sort of admire your tenacity. **But you are just fantasizing and not making a serious attempt at explaining the origins of the universe. ** But I understand you can’t deviate too much.
You know, the interesting hypocrisy here is that you have always made claims without providing sources for your claims. I can just as easily say that everything you have said is completely made up, simply because you have nothing to back up your opinions.
My tenacity, as you say, is not because I think you can be convinced. I have been pretty much certain you are a troll for a long time, because of the way you speak, and you haven’t given me any reason to get rid of that opinion. The reason I continue to argue with you is for the benefit of my own mental exercise and for those around me.
I promise to only bring it up when someone makes a point using the ‘insert god for explanation’ argument.
You can’t blame me for that.
Fair enough.
You can’t call the imposition of a God into a theory as a valid conclusion - I would call it a delusion. You may as well say it was Elvis. You sound a clever chap. I was hoping for a bit more original thought.
If you call the imposition of God into a theory a delusion, I will call the multiverse theory a delusion. There is actually less evidence for that theory than there is for God.
The other thing which is interesting about this conversation is that you keep trying to use “science” to disprove God. Do you not recognize that science and religion are two different things, and neither can exclude the other? Some of the greatest scientists in history were Catholic religious (gunpowder was invented by a monk) and many of the greatest scientists in the world were Catholic.
As a matter of fact, you may not believe it, but the majority of the scientific world today believes in a God of some sort, BECAUSE of science. That, however, is obscured because most of the outspoken scientists are atheists.
If you wish to convince anyone on this forum of anything, you must provide solid evidence for your claims, as we have. And by “solid evidence,” I mean evidence that pertains to the field in which we are speaking. Just as you cannot use a botany guide to understand astrophysics, so also you cannot use science to fully understand God.
dshix I get it, you believe what you are suggesting, I guess you have to. You can’t be indoctrinated and have the ability to change your mind. The church does not allow that, so it has to be more clever at distinguishing its position in the light of new knowledge. It can’t change its mind, because that would set a precedent that it could not cope with.
Don’t use the “brainwashed” argument. It is an automatic conversation destroyer. I use reason for my arguments, and almost none of the things I have said to you have been copied from an external source; it all comes from my mind.
