Prove there's a god.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622692 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>"Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective."
Snipped from one of my posts. I even left in the context so you can't accuse me of quote mining. Do I need to find more posts where I echo a similar sentiment (that religious belief is not important until it interferes with objectivity) or do you accept that I clearly have no issue with religious scientists, only with "scientists" who allow their religion to inform their science?
Im sorry, but lady you have to be the most foolish hypocrit thats EVER been on topix...... Double standard, and many other things i could think of......

How can you NOW say this, ohh never mind too late u done did....

Do you want me to find THE post of yours where you PLAINLY stated that,,

"science REMOVES >>>> bias <<<<<< and human errors"""?

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622693 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
If a scientist uses the scientific method and has data to substantiate it, it doesn't matter what they believe. science is science and they are still a scientist. Who are you to say their faith informed their science? You won't even be objective and read the data...no...you immediately assume it's biased. what that tells me is one of two things...you're either prejudice or shallow. maybe both... Pick one.
I pick "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc etc..........Z

Just saying.

“Truth is beyond wavelength ”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#622694 May 9, 2013
How can you remember your sense of being from a minute ago when it is no different from your sense of being that you are feeling now?

If you inhale *exactly* the same way 60 times, and *all* other variables are *exactly* the same, you can't tell one from the other; you can only differentiate them by chronology. You know you inhaled 60 times but that's all.

Just like you know you existed for the last 60 seconds, but not because you can differentiate one integral slice of time from another (unless some other variable changes).

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#622695 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>No, not technically.

But when atheists advocate a Santa display while at the same time denigrate a Manger display, I see that as biased and somewhat symbolizing atheism.

Or how atheists bitch n whine about prayer in school then turn around and throw a St Patrick's Day party (leprechauns and all), that's more symbolism and bias.
Atheists throw St. Patrick's day parties?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#622696 May 9, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>What is our 'common ancestor'?

The theory of evolution hinges on the idea that all life came from one life. What life is that?

Since that question has never been answered, how could it be taught in a basic biology class?

Oh, that's right. I'm being childish and ignorant and I should just "believe" in evolution like you do.

Yes of course. But my line of questioning is about the supposed common ancestor we all share.

Of which Koder claimed is a simple biology class but has yet to definitively answer.
Nobody has that answer.

Not even you.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#622697 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Any scientific data...if an expert scientist uses the scientific method for any research...it doesn't matter what their personal beliefs are...they are still scientists.
So then why do creationist "scientists" not use the scientific method?

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622698 May 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
But the medical fields would collapse if evolution weren't true.
Im not sure if i follow you, but what does "evolution of man from one ancestor" have to do with medicine, if thats what ur implying? And why does it have to be true??? I get the concept and agree, of Evolving diseases, and new strings of flu etc etc appearing, but again why are you saying it would collapse if evolution weren't true?
Since you approve of medical science in general, ask any doctor if they "believe" in evolution.
Let me know if you find one that doesn't.
Ill ask around... but first you will need to clarify what you mean by Evolution, in general or just the concept of diseases evolving..

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#622699 May 9, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? Did you ask me a question, and are you expecting an answer?
Surely not.......
You cannot answer, because if you say that the laws are not subjective, you prove you are a liar or that the bible is. If you say that laws are objective, you still prove that the bible is wrong. Either way, you cannot answer without exposing a lie.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#622700 May 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks fake to me.
My thoughts too, said it was caught in South America. The artical in portugese said it was a mutation from a pestiside.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#622701 May 9, 2013
Bartholomew Oglethorpe wrote:
<quoted text>Right. But you need to look up the word presuppositional. And, point to the scientific evidence for supernatural entities. When you do, go take the JREF Million Dollar Challenge. I'll wait.
I know exactly what presuppositional means...for peters sake...what is it with you people. Timn's whole argument is presuppositional. he's already concluded that any science done by someone who believes in God...is useless...basically. It's really a useless argument and I'm pretty much over it... I'm not an idiot...and again...there is no scientific evidence for any spiritual or supernatural being. Get a grip Bart...seriously!

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#622702 May 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So then why do creationist "scientists" not use the scientific method?
How can you be sure they don't? Seems for many, maybe not you, I'm not sure...it would be impossible to assume they don't since most won't even read anything they publish.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#622703 May 9, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
I pick "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc etc..........Z
Just saying.
:) and I say you picked right!

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#622704 May 9, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Im not sure if i follow you, but what does "evolution of man from one ancestor" have to do with medicine, if thats what ur implying? And why does it have to be true??? I get the concept and agree, of Evolving diseases, and new strings of flu etc etc appearing, but again why are you saying it would collapse if evolution weren't true?
<quoted text>
Ill ask around... but first you will need to clarify what you mean by Evolution, in general or just the concept of diseases evolving..
It doesn't have to be true ... or not, but the theory of evolution has made medical science today possible.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#622705 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
I know exactly what presuppositional means...for peters sake...what is it with you people. Timn's whole argument is presuppositional. he's already concluded that any science done by someone who believes in God...is useless...basically. It's really a useless argument and I'm pretty much over it... I'm not an idiot...and again...there is no scientific evidence for any spiritual or supernatural being. Get a grip Bart...seriously!
Yet, you still believe that everything points to a god, in spite of there being no such evidence. You presupposition is more damaging.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#622706 May 9, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
The whole point of creation science is to prove the bible is correct and that god made everything. This means they start with a conclusion.
This isn't about just conversing with people who believe differently than you. My question was, specifically, would you value the research of a muslim on the specific question of jesus's divinity. His conclusion is set in stone from the beginning, so I have no clue why you would value his "research."
Well duh...what if his research proved my belief wrong? I could research Jesus Divinity all day long...and my personal belief may or may not cloud my judgement. it's always best to get the views of others. Especially those who disagree...they bring new info to the table that you may otherwise never know. I try to always look at what the opposers say...you can't make a truly well-informed decision if you're only looking at one side.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#622707 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
How can you be sure they don't? Seems for many, maybe not you, I'm not sure...it would be impossible to assume they don't since most won't even read anything they publish.
Well, so far no scientific paper claiming "god dun it" has been published. There is no evidence supporting or even suggesting creationism. There is no evidence supporting the supernatural claims in the bible. So, if they are using the scientific method, it has not once demonstrated that your god or bible is fact.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622708 May 9, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>No,*you* are not making any sense, or *you* are not understanding *me*. You state that in the absence of a hippocampus we still have a sense of being. That supports my belief. What does that have to do with memory? If a person without a hippocampus 'sleeps without dreaming' they too will have no memory of "being". If a person with a hippocampus 'sleeps without dreaming' they will have no memory of "being" either. So how does this help you?
Even if a person with a functioning hippocampus is awake they still can't remember their sense of being because as I've explained, it is not an event, and for another reason that I'll explain.
Take a moment, try to close out your senses. No tasting, no feeling (except for your @$$ against the chair, but that is a "given" so we will have to ignore that; pretend you are in a dark zero-g chamber), no sight, no sound, no smell. OK, the one thing you cannot close out is your sense of being. You sense that you are "there" or "alive".
You are familiar with that sense of being but it doesn't form a memory because it is not an event. You know you were awake a minute ago but you can't remember your exact specific 'sense of being' from a minute ago because, just as electrons behave the same under the same conditions, the sense of being is exactly the same no matter in what instant of time you are sensing your being.
Get it? The sense of being never changes. You may feel old but your sense of being never ages, your sense of being still feels like it always did.
Your recording device is on when awake but you still can't remember your sense of being because it is always exactly the same.
No, it doesn't. You said we don't remember being asleep because we can't remember it, and I showed you that a sense of being can persist even without memory - therefore, assuming a healthy brain, we should be able to remember being asleep, unless our sense of being does indeed "turn off." Remember, I'm not saying that a sense of being can't possibly persist while asleep, I'm just saying that your justification for why we don't remember it (no memory) is incorrect. If someone's sense of being just disappeared as soon as their hippocampus was damaged, that would support your assertion that memory is required to "feel" a sense of being.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622709 May 9, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Im sorry, but lady you have to be the most foolish hypocrit thats EVER been on topix...... Double standard, and many other things i could think of......
How can you NOW say this, ohh never mind too late u done did....
Do you want me to find THE post of yours where you PLAINLY stated that,,
"science REMOVES >>>> bias <<<<<< and human errors"""?
Yes, it does, if you actually follow the scientific method. Creation scientists do not follow the scientific method. Also, I did not say that it completely removes human error or bias, I said that it's purpose is to remove error/bias, and that it does a good job of it.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622710 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
I know exactly what presuppositional means...for peters sake...what is it with you people. Timn's whole argument is presuppositional. he's already concluded that any science done by someone who believes in God...is useless...basically. It's really a useless argument and I'm pretty much over it... I'm not an idiot...and again...there is no scientific evidence for any spiritual or supernatural being. Get a grip Bart...seriously!
Holy shite. For the last time, no, that is not what I'm saying. I even quoted myself from an old post to prove that my position has always been that religious people can do science, and you ignored it. My claim is that once they start with the conclusion that their religion is right about the world and then look for ways to support that conclusion, they are no longer doing science. Seriously, I'm not making a bold claim or anything, it's pretty standard.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#622711 May 9, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Well duh...what if his research proved my belief wrong? I could research Jesus Divinity all day long...and my personal belief may or may not cloud my judgement. it's always best to get the views of others. Especially those who disagree...they bring new info to the table that you may otherwise never know. I try to always look at what the opposers say...you can't make a truly well-informed decision if you're only looking at one side.
Even if his research "proved your belief wrong," you should still look for an objective source of the same information, not a source with a vested interest. That makes no sense. Science is not science when it starts from a conclusion. This is really, really simple.

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 6 min dollarsbill 8,359
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 21 min sangili karuppan 7,656
The Christian Atheist debate 26 min Critical Eye 4,082
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 29 min RiccardoFire 41,170
Fight at Seasons Inn last night. 1 hr Unknown allen ky 1
Poll Why are Americans becoming so stupid? (Jun '08) 1 hr nightwalker 152
Poll What's your opinion on Mexicans? (Jul '10) 1 hr Johnny 78
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 hr June VanDerMark 603,567
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 14 hr Lyndi 177,899
More from around the web