This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Religion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
is science indifferent to the existence of god?
Yes.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If the existence of god is proved, wouldn't many theories etc collapse?
A) I already said, God's existence cannot be proved from science.
B) No. The big bang, evolution, or any of the ones your probably thinking about in no way depend on God existing or not. Any theories that do claim to contradict God existing absolutely are not scientific.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
You'll notice that the second definition is the one relating to what we're talking about
via
the example.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
If the existence of god is proved, wouldn't many theories etc collapse?
A) I already said, God's existence cannot be proved from science.
B) No. The big bang, evolution, or any of the ones your probably thinking about in no way depend on God existing or not. Any theories that do claim to contradict God existing absolutely are not scientific.
See, I don't like when you pull this crap. Yes, there are plenty of scientific theories that stand against many of the events in the Bible that you believe are factual. You extend your meaning of "God" far beyond merely "He created the universe", and then when someone attacks that, you retract it and say "He created the universe, you haven't disproved that". Seriously, that isn't a valid debate tactic, stop that ^&*!.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
You'll notice that the second definition is the one relating to what we're talking about
via
the example.
He linked that, from there you stop yourself from trying to change the definition to suit your argument, take a couple steps back, and then argue based on what is actually already there.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Yes, there are plenty of scientific theories that stand against many of the events in the Bible that you believe are factual. You extend your meaning of "God" far beyond merely "He created the universe", and then when someone attacks that, you retract it and say "He created the universe, you haven't disproved that".
I hate when you pull this crap.
You attacking a straw man. I never once mentioned the Bible. I never once extended my meaning of God in this argument. If you're adding those things on yourself, that's not a problem with me, that's a problem with you making assumptions.
Post by
350146
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
You'll notice that the second definition is the one relating to what you're talking about
via
the example.
he quoted too fast before my 2nd reply to clarify further, lol.
So I agree with a definition you link....so what?
Post by
349158
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
Then stop using the word God, and sub in X. We have the statement "X, the creator of the universe, may or may not exist." This statement does not in any way support the Bible or anything else that has been discussed. You cannot claim to know or not know whether the characters Yahweh, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or any of those other fun guys are real based on that. I don't think any scientific theory rejects X, however science does reject a lot of those bible characters as they are described.
X has nothing to do with religion, you do not claim faith in X, you claim faith in a Bible character. There is a difference.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Let's move on from the flame wars. Hyperspacerebel, according to your belifs, how old is the Earth?
That doesn't fall under the category of belief for me.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Then stop using the word God, and sub in X.
Oh look, semantics! From Mediator? No way!
I'll label "the creator of the universe" however I want.
You can call it X, I don't care.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So you accept the geological evidence that the Earth is ~4.55b years?
It's a matter of trusting scientific evidence, so yes.
Post by
TheMediator
Then stop using the word God, and sub in X.
Oh look, semantics! From Mediator? No way!
I'll label "the creator of the universe" however I want.
You can call it X, I don't care.
See, you're just using the word God for that thing just to confuse other people. You're the one using semantics and bending the meaning of things to try to confuse people on the forums who aren't aware of your tactics. Again, stop that @#$%.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.