Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64659 Dec 11, 2012
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#64660 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Assertions using the name of science can not disprove the existence of God.
Every one are subjected to their opinions whether true or false.
But no one in the history of mankind and the universe are able to disprove the existence of God.
None.
Science doesn't set out nor is interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. It's purpose if far more limited, it is limited to facts. It attempts to prove/disprove them through repeatable experiments that support/don't support the previous result. It's rational. Here's a simple science experiment to illustrate: 1+1=2. Now you try it. See? Same result. There's no opinion or beliefs involved.

On the other hand, religion is not fact based. It is, by it's own admission, a belief system (it's silly to say "I believe" 1+1 is 2 because it's a proven fact that it is 2). Beliefs are not, by definition, either right or wrong (that would make them a fact). Beliefs are either held or not (it's equally silly to say that God in fact exists because a belief of such an existence is not subject to independent verification). You can only legitimately question whether or not the individual actually believes (if one does, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong)or not (if one does not, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong). Or the strength of his/her belief. As such, it is, by definition, irrational.

The problem is using rationality to explain the irrational and vice-versa (like trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole). Otherwise called a "categorical mistake."

So does God exist? Well of course not.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#64661 Dec 11, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps not. Then again, scientists haven't tried to disprove God (many scientists are quite religious, mind you).
But.
Science CAN provide evidence that the "Creation" account given in Genesis is incorrect, that the universe, earth, and life itself did not form under in the method(s) and time scales described in the Bible.
I agree. The problem is that religious individuals are using irrationality to explain rational features. Doesn't work; better, cannot work. To explain rational features one needs to use rational arguments. Similarly, to explain irrational features on needs to rely on irrationality. This will not "prove" anything in the scientific sense, it will only prove one's belief system. Hence, it's correct to say "I believe in creationism" and incorrect to say "Creationism is a fact." The latter statement is akin to saying "A square is round."

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64662 Dec 11, 2012
Jesus Diablo wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't set out nor is interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. It's purpose if far more limited, it is limited to facts. It attempts to prove/disprove them through repeatable experiments that support/don't support the previous result. It's rational. Here's a simple science experiment to illustrate: 1+1=2. Now you try it. See? Same result. There's no opinion or beliefs involved.
On the other hand, religion is not fact based. It is, by it's own admission, a belief system (it's silly to say "I believe" 1+1 is 2 because it's a proven fact that it is 2). Beliefs are not, by definition, either right or wrong (that would make them a fact). Beliefs are either held or not (it's equally silly to say that God in fact exists because a belief of such an existence is not subject to independent verification). You can only legitimately question whether or not the individual actually believes (if one does, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong)or not (if one does not, fine; as a belief it's neither right nor wrong). Or the strength of his/her belief. As such, it is, by definition, irrational.
The problem is using rationality to explain the irrational and vice-versa (like trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole). Otherwise called a "categorical mistake."
So does God exist? Well of course not.
Hmm...so the universe just came together finely tuned randomly?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64663 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Big deal, no-one can disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Whatever. But that does not change who God truly is. God exist.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64664 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I stopped at talking lizard.
Whatever, dream boy.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64665 Dec 11, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You are making assumptions here that don't necessarily follow.
Because we die is not proof that God exists my friend.
There will always be gaps in what we want to do and what we can do.
And that gaps vividly proves the existence of God.
reality

Germantown, OH

#64666 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that gaps vividly proves the existence of God.
Huh? What?
You obviously didn't bother to try out for your high school debate team and/or you very conveniently slept with your college LOG101 professor.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64667 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that gaps vividly proves the existence of God.


Now who can argue with logic like THAT?

[/SARCASM]

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64668 Dec 11, 2012
MazHere wrote:
As I have previously stated, atheists gobble on about how NOT special the earth and mankind is on the back of all observed data suggesting the earth and mankind are special.'Goldilocks' is the term often used
You could be right, but we haven't been able to explore any of the planets outside our solar system yet, so our knowledge about them is rather limited. I suggest not rushing to a conclusion just yet.
MazHere wrote:
and if anyone talks of aliens they are nuts as none have been verified.
Well we can speculate about aliens, and I guess we can speculate about earth being more golden than planets barely detected, but neither speculation deserves even the most tentative conclusions.
MazHere wrote:
Then they deny the possible existence of an alien life form, just because it is not organic and explainable with our limited knowledge, where we can hardly explain all we can observe.
If you are talking about God or gods, most of the denial is relative to interacting with them on earth. Most agnostics and atheists haven't had the benefit of any such encounter, so you shouldn't blame them for doubting. I'll just include the various gods with the category of aliens until I meet one.
MazHere wrote:
So if you want to gobble on about "Not being able to prove something one way or the other is still not being able to prove something one way or the other.", then atheists and evolutionists are leaders in using the strategy you spoke to and calling that science.
No doubt that can happen, so it's important to communicate to each other when we are having fun with some wild speculation, versus, when we think we are getting close to some real insight.
MazHere wrote:
Indeed the proof in the pudding is evos and particularly atheists needing to chase thier tails in hypocritical philosophical rhetoric staying as far away from science as they possibly can.
I don't see all that much more hypocritical attitude in atheists versus believers. Some are more genuine than others, it's true. But it seems to me that it depends mostly on innate personality.

Do evos actually gobble? Isn't that just a gratuitous insult? I'm sorry if you are reacting to bad manners on the part of your debating opponents. I hope you will learn to forgive.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64669 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> It goes in both ways.
Just to show that I am not jealous of your having the last word, it being the most final truth and all....
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> It goes in both ways.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64670 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am not asking you for any favour. I am only telling you that, you can not deny the validity of the bible and the creator.
How can you deny that I already did that?
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am not asking you for any favour. I am only telling you that, you can not deny the validity of the bible and the creator.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64671 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Dreaming. Denying God's existence is like denying ones life. Humans despite the advent of drugs, still ends up dying. Science just can not stop that.
Why, Bill?
Because God truly exist.
First time I heard that God's major objective was to see us killed.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Because God truly exist.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64672 Dec 11, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
"You're in your own patriarchal fantasy."
But realistically, logically, rationally and MOST importantly, that IS what matters MOST, so that is probably a GOOD place to be.
Therefore, such WOULD be "right!".
Are you saying that a patriarchy is your ideal "heaven"? Mmmmm, not my cup of tea.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64673 Dec 11, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen Dude-if YOU want to be a tool so be it--but NOT all of us do.
SOME of us prefer to be..well...more like "vessels".
So there.
That's a genderized kind of abstraction!

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64674 Dec 11, 2012
Hey,goodbye fellow debaters. Loved meeting you. Back to my real job now: http://www.openbsd.org
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64675 Dec 11, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
No mention of "aliens", but given so much that we DON'T know..nothing can relaly be ruled "out". Not to people with actual active brain waves anyway!!
No culture in the history of the world, save the thoroughly depraved and expiring ones, has failed to affirm the existence of a Supreme Being. It is an empirical observation that men without a strong and lasting faith in a Supreme Being are less capable, less ethical and less valuable to themselves and society....A man without an abiding faith is, by observation alone, more of a thing than a man.
Not a bad intro to the concepts of...
http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-be...
L. Ron Hubbard's favorite cynical con? I can't tell if you're trolling so I'll step away!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#64676 Dec 11, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course even the "95%" would have to admit that with a best case scenario 2/3 of the people on the planet are wrong. There is a slue of gods out there and the only thing they all agree on is that the others don't exist.
Hmm, maybe they are more right than I give them credit for. The whole world is at least 99.9% atheist!
As an aside, did you know that the word "slue" in that context (also spelled "slew") is straight Irish Gaelic?

"Sla" - a crowd or large group...

Now back to our scheduled program.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64677 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> More or less like Tom, in the MGM cartoon series of Tom and Jerry. Lol
Tom ain't got no majikal ayes! He's a cat!

Besides, the only good Tom and Jerry cartoons are the old ones, before they chopped them all up to censor out the racial stereotype gags and violence. The new ones all were written by humorless psychologists.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64678 Dec 11, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
Hey,goodbye fellow debaters. Loved meeting you. Back to my real job now: http://www.openbsd.org
How does this relate to FreeBSD?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 11 min andet1987 55,283
I Like..... (Mar '14) 12 min Rose of Tralee 502
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 13 min Old Sam 1,974
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 14 min beatlesinafog 1,773
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 14 min Old Sam 13,589
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 16 min andet1987 25,603
New "Drop one Word" With Famous People's Names (Oct '12) 17 min Old Sam 439
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min SLY WEST 152,574
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 32 min Mega Monster 7,646
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr dragoon70056 2,906
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 5 hr Will Dockery 24,144
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 hr -Persephone- 25,759
More from around the web