So Why Not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2012, 04:29 PM
RE: So Why Not?
(22-05-2012 04:17 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  "Semantics"


(the word), despite it's pejorative connotatiion in currrent useage, DOES matter a great deal. Science is a method. The word "fact" does not occur in any of the steps of the method. Also a "fact" is NOT the proven theory, but really the individual observed "event", which SUPPORTS the theory.

As far as "setting aside the ..." goes. How can anyone hate the monster under the basement steps ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2012, 06:57 PM
RE: So Why Not?
(05-04-2012 07:17 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  I have not spent any time discussing the topic of creation with atheists. I have questions. Please set aside if you will any disgust or hatred for organized religion or the God I believe in, if you have any, for the sake of discussion. Of course, this is merely a request and I understand if you cannot contain but feel you must unload the frustration you have upon this thread.

Why can't all that we currently know for fact (not unproven scientific theory) in science be explained by a god or deity who created all things with apparent age and natural laws governing their continued progression for his purposes?

I understand that there are many, who using logic, come to the conclusion that it isn't necessary to have a god or deity to explain what they see but my question is do you have any evidence to suggest that this is not possible?

Thanks in advance,

Gary
Hey Gary - Scientific Theories are not just guesses, they explain a field/area of science and contain "facts". Atomic Theory has never been proven, I think we'd all have to admit that theory works. I know the term get misunderstood and misused. Just wanted to be on the same page.

In a technical sense a deity could be responsible but it/she/he/they evidently don't want us to observe it. Since science works with what can be tested, measured and observed you don not see scientist usually reaching a sticking point and appealing to a deity. In the past they have and somebody has usually come along without god on the brain and found a perfectly natural reason.

Take care
Gary Smile

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2012, 06:20 AM
RE: So Why Not?
(22-05-2012 04:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-05-2012 04:17 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  "Semantics"


(the word), despite it's pejorative connotatiion in currrent useage, DOES matter a great deal. Science is a method. The word "fact" does not occur in any of the steps of the method. Also a "fact" is NOT the proven theory, but really the individual observed "event", which SUPPORTS the theory.

As far as "setting aside the ..." goes. How can anyone hate the monster under the basement steps ?
I don't get it... wasn't I saying the same thing? Huh

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2012, 07:09 AM
RE: So Why Not?
Quote: gdemoss Wrote: Why can't all that we currently know for fact (not unproven scientific theory) in science be explained by a god or deity who created all things with apparent age and natural laws governing their continued progression for his purposes?

Everything can be explained by sticking a god in all the gaps of knowledge.

God could have sneezed and caused the big bang.

Since the concept of god is not contained by any reality based concepts, you can make up any type of thing and it will always fit.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2012, 12:02 PM
RE: So Why Not?
(23-05-2012 06:20 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(22-05-2012 04:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  (the word), despite it's pejorative connotatiion in currrent useage, DOES matter a great deal. Science is a method. The word "fact" does not occur in any of the steps of the method. Also a "fact" is NOT the proven theory, but really the individual observed "event", which SUPPORTS the theory.

As far as "setting aside the ..." goes. How can anyone hate the monster under the basement steps ?

I don't get it... wasn't I saying the same thing? Huh


You were saying the same thing. I was just supporting you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2012, 03:44 PM
RE: So Why Not?
(05-04-2012 07:17 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Why can't all that we currently know for fact (not unproven scientific theory) in science be explained by a god or deity who created all things with apparent age and natural laws governing their continued progression for his purposes?


It IS possible, it's just that it's equally probable that all this occurred last Thursday. Once you posit a God that makes the universe look older than it really is, all bets are off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2012, 02:54 PM
RE: So Why Not?
It is just as I thought. The miss communication of words expressed to define and explain a thing often brings about more problems than the thing being explained. I understand better what has been said about 'facts' supporting 'theory' by being a part of it and therefore something that is built on the basis of many 'facts'. In that regard I would simply suggest that I am into 'spiritually based scientific theory' that begins with the assumption of the God of the bible being true. As I have studied the creation around me, especially human behavior, I have not found anything that has been contrary to that which I understand the bible to declare to be true. I have found that man has begun from a position of neither accepting or rejecting a god perse but instead has studied based upon his own ability and rejected the bibles spiritual laws that declare that obedience to what God has said must precede true knowledge as God only gives new revelation to those who will obey what he has already revealed. And all things have a moral center based upon the person of God. Unfortunately most will never accept this approach and die in ignorance.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2012, 03:32 PM
RE: So Why Not?
In other words, god enjoys trapping people in ignorance?

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2012, 03:56 PM
RE: So Why Not?
(24-05-2012 03:32 PM)Dom Wrote:  In other words, god enjoys trapping people in ignorance?
People are not trapped. They choose to be in ignorance.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2012, 05:46 PM
RE: So Why Not?
(05-04-2012 07:17 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  I have not spent any time discussing the topic of creation with atheists. I have questions. Please set aside if you will any disgust or hatred for organized religion or the God I believe in, if you have any, for the sake of discussion. Of course, this is merely a request and I understand if you cannot contain but feel you must unload the frustration you have upon this thread.

Why can't all that we currently know for fact (not unproven scientific theory) in science be explained by a god or deity who created all things with apparent age and natural laws governing their continued progression for his purposes?

I understand that there are many, who using logic, come to the conclusion that it isn't necessary to have a god or deity to explain what they see but my question is do you have any evidence to suggest that this is not possible?

Thanks in advance,

Gary
There's no way to know that a god or gods is not responsible for the creation of the the universe. There's no way to prove that it didn't happen. There's no evidence to suggest that it's impossible.

You already know why we don't assume it's true based on skepticism. You personally also don't assume that Islam is true just because you can't disprove it, so I'm sure you see where we're coming from.

Of course you may answer this with an attempt to disprove Islam, but I promise you, any attempt will be answered with a similar attempt to disprove Christianity using the same exact argument, and I'll happily expose the double-standard you apply to evidence.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: