Well that proves it then
-
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.
-
So you claimed to be intellectual but clearly are not. Ok, I'll be more specific since you want to wordsmith me. Do not use science as proof when science cannot prove something 400,000 years old.
ryanb31 wrote:
So you claimed to be intellectual but clearly are not.
Now you resort to insulting those you do not know. A fine example you are setting.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Exactly, it doesn't even mention it. You are the one who claimed it said the earth was flat so why would I try to find the reference. Waste of time.
Actually, it does. I suggest you go home and study up. All the references insinuate the world is not spherical.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
So you claimed to be intellectual but clearly are not.
Now you resort to insulting those you do not know. A fine example you are setting.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Here is where you will get lost if we get into that discussion. The adults need to get back to work now. Thanks.
I don't believe I would get lost. I know the bible as well as you do, trust me. You won't get into that argument because you have realized that you have talked yourself into a corner.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
Actually, it does. I suggest you go home and study up. All the references insinuate the world is not spherical.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
God spoke with men called as prophets and they wrote exactly what he told them to. At that point, yes the writings were perfect and the EXACT word of God. However, for example, shortly after Christ died the rest of the apostles were also killed and the apostasy began. God's authority was no longer held by man on earth and there was no longer any on-going revelation between God and prophets which is why the Bible ends. Man then began to put its own interpretation on the writings and man translated, not inspired prophets, the Bible. King James had many, many men, not prophets, translate the Bible to the best of their knowledge. So, yes I believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. But some of the plain and precious truths have been removed, even some of them were removed intentionally. For example, the King James version says the the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart after each of the plagues by Moses. That can't be true because it contradicts all of the other teaching of the Lord's. The Lord will soften hearts, never harden them. But you still have not answered my question. Do you believe the timeline in the Bible? I am not trying to argue religious facts about the Bible but merely do you accept the timeline it presents?
ryanb31 wrote:
So, yes I believe in the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.
ryanb31 wrote:
For example, the King James version says the the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart after each of the plagues by Moses. That can't be true because it contradicts all of the other teaching of the Lord's.
Well, not each plague, only a selection. Pharoah's heart hardens of its own accord sometimes. Can you tell me what a translation of the Hebrew version of Exodus actually says, and how it was mistranslated.
If people made the effort to read something three times before commenting, blogs would be much more useful places. - Anon.