Well that proves it then
-
I am not a so called intellectual, I am currently working on my second degree, Evolutionary Biology, so I do know what I am talking about. At no point did we ever think the earth is flat, and we do not 'Believe' because of science, we 'Know' because of science, you really ought to study it and understand the terminology. Of course things can be proven to be 2 billion years old, if you think otherwise then you need a little more education in regards to physics and maths. Science does not need faith, for all science is repeatable, that is one of the tennets od science. If it can be repeated, it can be shown to be, and once shown to be, no belief is necessary. I can prove things with fact, believers in sky pixies cannot argue their case. How can you prove something that only exists because you believe in it? It is a self defeating point of view. Proof of god is impossible because it doesn't exist. Your only argument that god exists is that your parents told you so, and their parents told them etc. Not much of a way to build a world is it? Generations of people killing and warring because of a story handed down by old people who have a vested interest in keeping the story alive.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave CCC Link[^] Trolls[^]
Dalek Dave wrote:
I am not a so called intellectual, I am currently working on my second degree, Evolutionary Biology, so I do know what I am talking about.
At no point did we ever think the earth is flat, and we do not 'Believe' because of science, we 'Know' because of science, you really ought to study it and understand the terminology.
Of course things can be proven to be 2 billion years old, if you think otherwise then you need a little more education in regards to physics and maths.Sigh...obviously a failure in the educational system then given that you do not understand the basics of science. Even worse that that you do not understand that assumptions are a fundamental and explicitly stated part of every mathematical proof.
Dalek Dave wrote:
I can prove things with fact, believers in sky pixies cannot argue their case. How can you prove something that only exists because you believe in it?
Another demonstrated failure in education. First off a given belief system doesn't need to prove anything at all within another the belief system. No more so that science is required to prove or disprove the bible. And science is a belief system. If you think not then please present proofs for the following. 1. Everything, and I do mean everything, is measurable. 2. Given object A and object B and the statement that A 'equals' B then prove that B is in fact A.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Proof of god is impossible because it doesn't exist.
It is well known in science that that statement is nonsense. Science doesn't seek to address the existence of god in the general sense because it is recognized that it outside the domain of what science seeks to cover (and that is another fundamental mathematical concept one that does have proofs.) You are free to believe that there are no dieties. It is not possible for you to prove that (and that is another fundamental concept of mathematics/logic.)
Dalek Dave wrote:
Your only argument that god exists is that your parents told you so, and their parents told them etc.
Not much of a way to build a world is it?Perhaps you were not referring to me, but I will note that my post said absolutely nothing about my viewpoint about the
-
Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning. Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation. It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning.
Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation.
It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.Err...no. First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven. Further every discipline of science has assumptions that are taken as absolutes and are never questioned. At least not by the rank and file. Second your hypothetical scenario is exactly what some people do - without proof. They believe completely that certain individuals have some connection with a diety or some other non-scientific factor. Thus you are doing nothing but stating your personal belief. Third your "extrodinary" statement is of course a fine attitude for a skeptic to take. That however is a personal decision, not an absolute. And most people do not follow that. So you might require that but is by no means absolute for most people and that includes even those that have a strong scientific leaning. If that isn't the case then it should be easy to demonstrate that those who believe in science are less likely to be taken in by financial scams.
-
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments. Take the religious aspect out of the Bible and you have a historical document that gives genealogy and dates showing that Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden around 4000 BC. Are you saying that part is also incorrect?
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments.
There are other Christians that would disagree with that.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
I am not trying to argue the Bible as religious truth or not. Everything you quoted is from the Old Testament and the Law of Moses and as you know, since you are Christian and believe in the Bible, when Christ came he fulfilled the Law of Moses and introduced the fullness of the Gospel and the higher law. No more eye for an eye so don't be silly with your Old Testament arguments.
There are other Christians that would disagree with that.
-
If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge? I can respect the position of a Christian like Nagy who doesn't claim that absolute truth in a 2000 year old book, but uses his intellect to decide what is simply poppycock. What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge?
Utter nonsense. The fact that a god is all knowing says absolutely nothing about why such a god would take any single or group of actions. And the very assumption of an all knowing god suggests implicitly that such a god could very well have 'reasons' for any action which is in fact impossible for a human to comprehend.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.
More nonsense. If one believes that the bible does in fact have some meaning then the belief itself is the starting point of all that follows. It isn't circular. And even if it were as a belief it is allowed to be just that. There is of course the logical fallacy of attempting to 'prove' some belief. But that ignores both the fact that such a 'proof' originates in another belief system and also ignores the fundamental belief of a god in the first place which by itself is sufficient to explain everything.
-
Marcus Kramer wrote:
Are you being trying really hard to be this obtuse, or is it that you really just can't understand logic and reasoning.
Theories are not accepted on belief, they are accepted based on testing and observation.
It is the existence of DD's termed "sky pixie" that requires blind belief. With the logic you are using, I could claim myself to be your god and that you should give me all of your money and your women.(At least the good looking ones) Would you believe me and do so. Of course not, you would require me to provide proof of the same before you believe any of it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which in the case of your beliefs, does not exist in anything other than conjecture. As a side note, there is more proof for the existence of the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus than there is for your deities.Err...no. First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven. Further every discipline of science has assumptions that are taken as absolutes and are never questioned. At least not by the rank and file. Second your hypothetical scenario is exactly what some people do - without proof. They believe completely that certain individuals have some connection with a diety or some other non-scientific factor. Thus you are doing nothing but stating your personal belief. Third your "extrodinary" statement is of course a fine attitude for a skeptic to take. That however is a personal decision, not an absolute. And most people do not follow that. So you might require that but is by no means absolute for most people and that includes even those that have a strong scientific leaning. If that isn't the case then it should be easy to demonstrate that those who believe in science are less likely to be taken in by financial scams.
jschell wrote:
First off science is based on assumptions. Fundamental ones that cannot be proven.
So in order to "believe" these things in science, you are placing the burden of proof on the scientist to provide. Why is it, that you cannot be held to the same standard with regards to your belief. Not to convince me, but to be honest with yourself regarding it.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Provide some references from the Bible to back up what you are saying about the earth and sun.
How about you prove that it doesn't. In this case the claim has been made here, so using your own logic it is up to you to disprove it rather than for us to prove it.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
Anyone who makes assumptions is a fool.
You obviously have no idea how science nor even logic works then.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Would you believe anything I told you just because I told you?
And it seems possible that you don't understand what the word "assumption" means. And certainly not in the context in which I presented it.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Assume nothing, believe only what you can prove.
You can't prove anything without assumptions.
Dalek Dave wrote:
In law an assumption of guilt is not enough, it has to be proved, or would you like to go to jail on the evidence of an accusation?
Certainly a hideous analogy. And even worse based on the specifics of the last. The US judicial system is full of examples of failures.
jschell wrote:
You obviously have no idea how science nor even logic works then.
A calculated theory is not an assumption. It is a starting point whereby research begins. That is how logical processes start.
jschell wrote:
You can't prove anything without assumptions.
Correct. It is a good thing that science uses thoughtfully calculated theories based on observation to begin researching and testing and not assumptions.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Why is that? Wasn't my response a direct answer to your question?
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Marcus Kramer wrote:
If your god was all-knowing and all-powerful and such, then don't you think he could have come up with 1 perfect set of rules that would stand the test of time as opposed to changing the rules to coincide with man's discoveries and knowledge?
Utter nonsense. The fact that a god is all knowing says absolutely nothing about why such a god would take any single or group of actions. And the very assumption of an all knowing god suggests implicitly that such a god could very well have 'reasons' for any action which is in fact impossible for a human to comprehend.
Marcus Kramer wrote:
What I cannot respect is willful ignorance which is what you are demonstrating here. The only foot you have to stand on is circular-reasoning where you believe what the book told you because the book told you it's right and you have to believe that because the book told you.
More nonsense. If one believes that the bible does in fact have some meaning then the belief itself is the starting point of all that follows. It isn't circular. And even if it were as a belief it is allowed to be just that. There is of course the logical fallacy of attempting to 'prove' some belief. But that ignores both the fact that such a 'proof' originates in another belief system and also ignores the fundamental belief of a god in the first place which by itself is sufficient to explain everything.
jschell wrote:
The fact that a god is all knowing says absolutely nothing about why such a god would take any single or group of actions.
And the very assumption of an all knowing god suggests implicitly that such a god could very well have 'reasons' for any action which is in fact impossible for a human to comprehend.And you call my statement utter nonsense. This comment is nothing more than an apologetic cop out.
jschell wrote:
If one believes that the bible does in fact have some meaning then the belief itself is the starting point of all that follows. It isn't circular. And even if it were as a belief it is allowed to be just that.
Let's try that one out.... 1) Believe in the bible. Why? 2) Because the bible says I should. Why? 3) Because the bible is the perfect word of god. Why? 4) Because the bible says so. 5) So I'll believe in the bible. Why? ... That's not circular reasoning at all. My apologies... :doh:
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
That is straight from the Bible so what specifically would they disagree with?
You would need to ask them. Pretty sure that the have been many disagreements as to what the Bible actually says though.
On this one, we agree. The different interpretations of passages is extreme between different denominations.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
How about you prove that it doesn't. In this case the claim has been made here, so using your own logic it is up to you to disprove it rather than for us to prove it.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Why is that? Wasn't my response a direct answer to your question?
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Then stop trying to use science as your proof for everything.
I don't. I use it for those things for which there is scientific proof. You keep harping on about our having to be 1137 years old, or not being around 400,000 years ago. It reveals a woeful ignorance. Try and think why.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Then stop trying to use science as your proof for everything.
I don't. I use it for those things for which there is scientific proof. You keep harping on about our having to be 1137 years old, or not being around 400,000 years ago. It reveals a woeful ignorance. Try and think why.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
Provide some references from the Bible to back up what you are saying about the earth and sun.
ryanb31 wrote:
Provide some references from the Bible to back up what you are saying about the earth and sun.
So, you know less about the Bible than I do, and I haven't read it for many years. Tell you what. You find me some Biblical references to the earth being spherical, rotating on its axis, and circling the sun - I've never ever encountered that in the Good Book.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
You gave me an example of how man-made religion is changing things. I wanted to know where God has changed the rules.
How about between the Old and New Testaments. You yourself said that.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Provide some references from the Bible to back up what you are saying about the earth and sun.
So, you know less about the Bible than I do, and I haven't read it for many years. Tell you what. You find me some Biblical references to the earth being spherical, rotating on its axis, and circling the sun - I've never ever encountered that in the Good Book.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.
-
How about between the Old and New Testaments. You yourself said that.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.