• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christian Science: Here's your Chance

Morpheus

Member
There is one fatal flaw in this whole discussion. You assume that something can be proved. Actually nothing can be proved absolutely. Proof can only be relative. And since you are asking proof of something that is considered 'absolute' and we can only try to do this from a relative perspective, we're stuck. Even the most solid and fundamental things in our physical world cant be proved. Take a rock - we say it has a mass. And we can 'prove' that mass by weighing it. Well, OK, but try weighing it when it is travelling at 186,000 miles per second. we get a different result. This 'disproves' the rock has said mass. It's all relative.
We can't 'absolutely' prove anything - let alone the existence or otherwise of an infinite and absolute God - whatever that is!
 

thedope

Active Member
I am not the least bit interested in your strawmen.

You attempted to drag science down to the same faith based level as religion.
You then claimed that you are not biased.
The fact that you tried to drag science down to the same faith based level as religion shows that you are biased.
So I called bull **** on your claim that you are not biased because you have clearly showed that you are in fact biased.

You inability (or perhaps unwillingness) to see/understand/comprehend what is being talked about is something you will have to work on.
All I can do is point it out.
Religion became science as both tumbled from the night time sky.
 

Sum1sGruj

Active Member
Of course they were around. With no way to explain phenomenons or why storms, lighting, earthquakes happen, something had to be made up to explain to those who wanted answers. :rolleyes:

You completely missed my point. Science is trying to answer things it is not capable of answering. At least not for the time being, and yet people find it necessary to question religion with it. Seriously, I would've figured someone to question my rationale by now.

But it seems word games and reversals are more appropriate than actually debating.
 
Last edited:

McBell

Unbound
As I stated long before, religion bears little 'proof', and will be dismissed by the sheer size of science in comparison (however vastly unproven). Prove that science is right, or let me state what I want on science as you do religion.
Prove that science is right?
Are we talking actual science or say Kent Hovind's idea of science?

If science cannot be touched in this debate, than there is really no reason for this thread to exist other than to bash Christians. Part of religious proof is the lack of proof going against it.
Who said science cannot be touched?
I mean, other than you?

It is not my fault you have nothing to show for religion that science can confirm.
It is not my fault that you feel the need lower science to the same faith based level as religion in order to present anything.

Getting all technical and absurd just because I mention the idea shows how biased you are, and really shows your true intent of being on this thread.
Cry me a river.
I am not the one who made the claim that I am not biased.
If memory serves, it was YOU who made the claim.

Here's a good example on why science must be examined for credibility: There is much indication of a worldwide flood in the past, but it doesn't fit into any hypothesis of evolution. A flood can account for why there are fish fossils on top of mountains, but it does not fit into the hypothesis of a geologist. A flood can account for fossil fuels, but that doesn't fit into the quite false idea that they must take 1000's or even million years to form.
I will have to ask you to support these claims:

  • the evidence of a world wide flood
  • how the idea that it takes 1000's or even millions of years for fossil fuels to form is a "false idea"
Science cannot give any realistic conclusion in lieu of religion, and yet non-religious people demand it of theists.
Conclusion for what?
"god did it" is not an explanation.


It's quite asinine. These religions were around long before all this scientific intrigue.
Nice appeal to longevity.

It's not our responsibility to prove anything, but rather the other way around if you want to be technical and absurd about it.
What a load of ****.
It is the responsibility of those making the claim to support their claim.

So please either debate or stop with the nonsense.
Ball is now your court.

Just keep in mind that "god did it" is not an explanation for anything outside of "Christian Science".
 

Sum1sGruj

Active Member
Prove that science is right?
Are we talking actual science or say Kent Hovind's idea of science?

If you can't prove science is right, then you can't prove religion is wrong. That is what I was trying to state in lieu of you being on that imaginary pale horse.

Cry me a river.
I am not the one who made the claim that I am not biased.
If memory serves, it was YOU who made the claim.

I'm not biased. I realize the limitations of science. No more, no less.


I will have to ask you to support these claims:

  • the evidence of a world wide flood
  • how the idea that it takes 1000's or even millions of years for fossil fuels to form is a "false idea"
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

The Great Flood

These two sources show how a great flood could accommodate for the many, often far-fetched claims that science tries to make sense of. Including fossil fuels.

What a load of ****.
It is the responsibility of those making the claim to support their claim.

Yes, science should. Exactly. Nail on head. Science makes claims according to their hypothesis and mark it as 'truth' and then it is put on religion. This is why I said earlier it is the atheists responsibility, not the theists, to prove credibility as religion has been around practically since man.
The problem is, there is no real credibility into any 'truth', but rather scientific theory.
 

McBell

Unbound
If you can't prove science is right, then you can't prove religion is wrong.
This is nothing more than wishful wishing on your part.
Religion is not some default answer if science is proved wrong.

No, religion has to stand on its own two feet, not count on the fail of science.

nice try though.

I'm not biased. I realize the limitations of science. No more, no less.
Your bias has already been pointed out.


[/list]
Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood

The Great Flood

These two sources show how a great flood could accommodate for the many, often far-fetched claims that science tries to make sense of. Including fossil fuels.
I will comment after I have checked these sources out.


Yes, science should. Exactly. Nail on head. Science makes claims according to their hypothesis and mark it as 'truth' and then it is put on religion. This is why I said earlier it is the atheists responsibility, not the theists, to prove credibility as religion has been around practically since man.
The problem is, there is no real credibility into any 'truth', but rather scientific theory.
Again you show your bias.
Religion does not get a free pass.
It matters not how long religion has been around, it has the EXACT SAME responsibilities as science:
It makes a claim, it has the burden of proof.
The biggest problem with religion is that it relies far to heavily on "God Said".
 
Top