The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
LOL that's a fair enough call. It is rather leading isn't it.
But let's face it we ALL know where this is going, i'm just trying to shorten the process a little bit.
-Q
-
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!
Creationists, please provide evidence
- Thread starter evolved yet?
- Start date
LOL that's a fair enough call. It is rather leading isn't it.
But let's face it we ALL know where this is going, i'm just trying to shorten the process a little bit.
-Q
Danmac
Well-Known Member
There are many things that are infinite. Lets assume God was made up of numbers.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
(Struggling hard to restrain from useing old cliche about assuming.......)
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
This would imply that God is entirely abstract, non-sentient, and has no direct effect on the physical universe. Are you sure that's what you mean?
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Why does one have to assume ANYTHING.
If something can be infinite, then let's first start with what is real and go from there.
EG the universe.
-Q
Danmac
Well-Known Member
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
Ain't that the truth.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
The trick is to stick with what you can prove.
strikeviperMKII
Well-Known Member
And learn exactly...nothing.
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
The point was, if you're going to assert something, be sure you can back it up.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
What is the value in learning something that you've assumed.
How do you know that what you have assumed is correct.
By what measure would you measure this assumption for correctness.
-Q
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Well, as the saying goes, Assumption is the mother of all...well, you know the rest (forum rules and all that).
That is why when we do science, we use hypotheses instead. And an essential part of a hypothesis is that it has to be falsifiable. Which means that it must make predictions. Predictions that we can later control for correctness. That is basically how science works. It progresses by eliminating the hypotheses that doesn't work and keeping those that do.
That is why we have been asking the Creationists in this tread for two things: A working hypothesis and, in turn, evidence. Without those things you're not doing science. It's as simple as that.
That is why when we do science, we use hypotheses instead. And an essential part of a hypothesis is that it has to be falsifiable. Which means that it must make predictions. Predictions that we can later control for correctness. That is basically how science works. It progresses by eliminating the hypotheses that doesn't work and keeping those that do.
That is why we have been asking the Creationists in this tread for two things: A working hypothesis and, in turn, evidence. Without those things you're not doing science. It's as simple as that.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
Facts can be interpreted to massage ones own presuppositions. Call me a maverick.
Danmac
Well-Known Member
The_Evelyonian
Old-School Member
If that were the case then these "proof of creationism" threads would be overflowing with potential evidence. The reality of the matter is somewhat different.
No.
Go Texans!
I can't prove I'll be alive in a week, but I'm making plans anyway.
No, but you have good reason and reliable evidence that says you will be. Leave proof for math.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest