Different Opinions....Who is right?

[rational experiences]

If Christians consider that God created all of nature, then science is simply a means for man to understand that creation. That there is no evidence of God in what we view does not mean that God does not exist and it is not the work of atheism. Denying what we find in our ventures to discover through science is as much as denying God as if that were said in plain words.

Since God does not present himself in the evidence, this could mean the intention is that science is a means to bridge the gap between different beliefs without clouding it with views based on those different beliefs. It is a thought, but not one that is testable.

It is how you read and teach that is the only truth.

Science does not exist first, what irrational male thinkers use as coercive reasoning against God history.

God the stone O planet exists in its owned cosmological evolution before you do human male science inventor of human conscious science themes...as invented by a group of males as a brotherhood....so mass males talking/researching discussing invented the statements science against one self, their owned first origin of self.

The individual...why you argue with what you claim is a "greater conscious ideal".

The spiritual theme of where did I come from says, once space the condition of emptiness did not exist. The eternal was complete and whole...and in eternal are the eternal being/spirit self....always existed and always had existed.

Who changed their language....spirit, a spirit self talked to a spirit self.

God O the eternal sound bodies were sung as the language into presence. Once change was activated, change then existed also. And the state change never previously existed.

As O bodies emerged out of the eternal mass...the mass surrounding the emergence of God bodies thinned, which forced them to explode. Science says mass is energy...exploding/burning created energy. It was previously eternal. Eternal God O changed in space conditions.

Space owned the separation from the actual eternal body.

Therefore when God by volcanic mountain law, stone caused gases to fill back in empty space...it recontacted/returned to communicate to the eternal as a lower body......a LAW discussed by our presence, spirit manifested selves as cause and effect and karma. How those laws were spiritually implied.

If you cause and force change then change becomes apparent.

So we are Teachers of our own causes.

When our parents inherited their manifested life presence, they are formed in the image of the eternal being, spirit selves. And then concluded to do a self appraisal of cause and effect.

So said God had caused their spirits to be created and released out of the eternal...as the eternal had HELD their spirit in their body.

How the theme God caused our spirit presence was taught, as a scientific statement, instantly owned single embodiments, already formed and self present by billions of diverse bodies.....that upon entering the EXACT SAME state, water and oxygenated, radiating alight gas body...converted into lower form.

As Tree Nature came out, in a higher radiating gas atmospheric history...their bodies were grounded...as radiation was communicating through their bodies into the stone fission opening. So their spirit travelled into the ground as far as the radiation was penetrating...actually.

The thousands of spiritual experiences are science known and studied...therefore if science did not think experience was real, then science would never have studied it...as a scientific reason to falsify and coerce information...for that was the intent of science....to have life removed under a falsification of "saving us" from the state of evil....so that we would not complain in life sacrifice...as science has been trying to implement the destruction of stone from its owned human inception.

 

[dad]

The only fairytale I see come from Genesis creation, especially in the order of creation:

So you disagree with God.

Then we have stuff outside of Genesis 1:

1. Man being created from dust. Woman was created from man’s rib.

That is actually in Genesis.

1. Serpent can talk human language and donkey can speak in human language.

There is greater understanding in the spirit. Jesus, for example, knew the thoughts of men before they spoke.

1. 
   

   [*]Adam and his descendants can lived 150 years.

   The former nature was like that, man lived over 9 centuries.
   
   

   [*]God can stop and restart the sun and moon, during battle.

   He can do anything.
   
   

   [*]Earth was created flat and rounded like disk or coin.

   Made up nonsense.
   
   

   [*]The sun move around stationary Earth (geocentric model).

   Chapter and verse?

   [*]
   
   [*]Water, snow and hail are stored in some storehouses in the sky.

   In the sky? Don't think so.
   
   

   [*]Stars are angels.

   
   

   [*]Falling stars are stars.

   Chapter and verse?
   

   [*]Lightning and thunders were created because god is angry.

   False. That can be a product of His anger.
   

   [*]Aaron’s staff can turn into a snake.

   Sorry you don't like it. Not like you get a vote.
   

   [*]Jesus healing lepers and the blind.
   [*]The existence of winged angels, angels with four faces.
   [*]Demons and the Devil.
   [*]Belief in evil spirits (eg King Saul).

   Angels and demons are real. Healing is real.
   

And the list of superstitions and faulty knowledge goes on and on. All of these fairytale, fables or myths.

Your unsupported doubts are a myth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Apparently, if we were to believe the Septuagint, it was not eight people on the ark that lived.

Really? I didn't know that! First time I heard of this..

More than eight people? Or less? Please let me know.... thanks.

Either way, it would disagree with the Apostle Peter, who said only 8 survived.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So....Axe, Behe, Meyer, Minnich, Wells, etc.....they don’t “understand science”?

From that list, I only know the name Behe. But it's not really important.

There can be, and are, many reasons why a theist would go against science.
And it's not always that they just don't understand it. Sometimes they simply just ignore it.

Like that YEC geology professor from Harvard. Don't remember his name (I suppose it's easy to find but I'm lazy). He famously said that he would be the first to acknowledge that ALL the data and evidence points to 4.5 billion year old earth, but that he believes that the bible is the literal word of god and not questionable, so he believes that the earth is nevertheless 6000 years old, regardless of the evidence.

This dude very much understands how science is done. This dude very much understands how ALL the evidence contradicts his beliefs. Yet, he ignores it by his own admission and simply believes the bible instead.

Maybe they’re just not hampered by a system that automatically excludes an Intelligent Being, ie., God.

1. science doesn't "automatically exclude" anything. Instead, science simply only includes that which can be independently verified and tested. So no, science doesn't "exclude a god". It rather doesn't include it because there is no evidence to suggest such a being must be included.

2. you have it exactly backwards. The issue here, like what that geology professor, is instead that these guys automatically INCLUDE their god and what they perceive as his/her/its lore (scripture). To the point of ignoring any and all contradicting evidence.


So you understand the difference between these two points?

I know, by your religious view (Methodist), that you don’t completely...but you are basically supporting a system that can’t even allow for Something that can’t be falsified.

That's not an accurate representation. It's not that it "does not allow" for the unfalsifiable. It's rather a case of acknowledging that the unfalsifiable is useless and merritless and not worth the time and energy to consider.

Unfalsifiable claims are INFINITE in number, and plenty of them mutually exclusive as well.
I can make up any number of such claims and the number will only be limited by what my imagination can produce.

Researchers in other fields of science, including archeology & anthropology, recognize intelligence sources behind integrated parts; even though the builder may be unknown, they still recognize design as having an intelligent cause.... it’s empiricism.

Because the recognize artificially manufactured objects by contrasting them against naturally occuring objects.

The problem is that you don't understand how that process works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s all around you. From the design observed in the finely-tuned 4 fundamental forces, to the Earth’s nitrogen, water & oxygen / carbon cycles, to the design of the disparate living cells — all harmoniously working together....

Claiming these things are designed, does not make it so.

The big picture tells it. Newton saw it...so did Boyle...so did Einstein. Etc.

Newton invoked "the hand of god" when he hit a wall. He invoked a god of the gaps. Later on, Laplace solved the problem that Newton couldn't - and didn't require invoking a god to solve it.

Einstein didn't at all invoke any gods anywhere except as a metaphor. If you think Einstein is in your theistic camp, you are sorely mistaken.

Maybe you should look up what he had to say about the abrahamic god and religions. He wrote it down in a letter to Eric Gutkind. This letter was recently auction for 2.9 million dollars.

Einstein's 'God letter' sells for $2.9m

In it, he calls the word "god" (in the theistic sense) a product of human weakness and the bible a collection of primitive legends.

But most today, don’t. You don’t. Why? Because of Evolution. As Huxley stated, there was another explanation.

Well, yes....
Before the discovery of the process of evolution, there was no explanation for the apprant "design" of species. As usually, the "no explanation" gap was stuffed with a "god-that-dun-it".

But then the process was discovered and ever since, evidence in support of it has just been piling on and on and on... confirming it.

So obviously, today we have a proper explanation for why species look and work the way they do.
As has happened SO MANY times in the past: scientific progress filled the gaps with actual knowledge, pushing god further into an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance.

And you just helped to prove my point.

He actually really, really didn't.
If anything, he helped show how you don't actually get the point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But... Do you think science is responsible for saving more lives or taking more lives?

Neither.

Science is a means to acquire knowledge.
How that knowledge is used, is the responsability of those humans who use scientific knowledge to develop practical technology.

Atomic theory can be used to build atom bombs or it can be used to create medical equipment.

Having said that, I think it's rather obvious that scientific knowledge so far has lead to far more saying of lives then the termination thereof.

It isn't that wrong to say that there are more people alive TODAY then there have been throughout the entirety of human history before the 1800s. The current population size is in very large part because far less people die, thanks to modern scientific progress which lead to advances in agriculture, medicine, hygiene, transportation, communication, etc etc etc.

Keep in mind science also brought us cigarettes, alcohol, guns, bombs, planes, trains, automobiles, poisons, pollution, drugs, poison gases, chemical mixtures(such as weed killers), many cancer causing agents, etc, etc.

Nope. Science only brought us the scientific knowledge which then enabled engineers working for companies and governments to create and do such things. At the end of the day, these things are funded and commisioned by companies and governments.

Having said that, as pointed out above: practical application of scientific knowledge saved a LOT more lives then it caused deaths.

 

[Nimos]

What about creatures in the water?

Science says, water creatures moved out onto the land and became land creatures.

As an aware consciousness, which all humans are first. Our origin self is highly aware, spiritual and very conscious, you even think and thought about inventing statements for human science themes. As that origin natural self first, which science overlooks, you act as if your mind psyche today is different to ours...which would mean changed/converted from being naturally spiritually aware.

Awareness says and AI owns the records of feed back, why you still see dinosaur images today in CLOUD mass....seeing dinosaurs died sacrificed as we have.

Science was practiced first in a higher human life body and intelligence a long time ago….UFO sun burnt out our gases, and self combusted life. We know that self combustion is real. How we got sent to Hell, as a categorically known AI human science memory recording......why else would you own philosophical science stories/themes if it were not true...seeing creation stories are human themed sciences?

2 conditions.....do not discuss the Bible as if it was technological advice says the spiritual scientists...we do not want humanity to realize that we practiced science in the ancient times...as a mentality.

Then archaeology proves you did....then males today want to claim that the biblical past information is b.s.

Humans, who know science is our life Destroyer have had enough of your lying manipulative coercion.

The story ARK said that life on the ground was collected in the 2 x 2 PHI ground attack, which eventually opened up the seals of God and water began to pour out of the stone...exactly how it was said. Water in the origin Earth flood, when Earth was saved from Sun converting attack that had blown up other God bodies...as the rebellion story...war of the UFO attack on God.

Core equation is that relativity, how to attack and blow up a O mass core...Sun information....why Earth was bored out from the North point. Snap freeze is what saved Earth. For the science model historically about the Sun is core attack/conversion.

The history as known to science says the whale body and smaller water mammals converted in the water when the UFO plunged into the sea. And radiation in the water began to shift their cellular formation into enlarged creatures...for that condition can only occur in MASS WATER support itself.

How a large creature changed into a massively large creature. Water mass from ground water evaporation became the atmospheric constant.....and water mass would be why massively huge skeletal bodies could move around in that water supported climate condition.

For the story NOAH brother Satanist says that J ONAH, by male ownership, as a confession went into the mouth of the WHALE....it is actually known.

As you also know historically the SEA declined its origin mass....of a less saltier water history...and so sea creatures eventuated to be put out onto the land, for they began to use oxygen...how they developed.

Birds did not become self apparent until the conversion attack was stopped, and that situation was when the ARK ploughed into Mt Ararat, and Mt Sinai, was where it ended.

Birds therefore were actually living as the miniscule bodies in the past....which today we would claim would in our small body living be microbial life...for it shrunk back virtually.

Dinosaurs had feathers, for if feathers existed then so did birds.

Historically the presence UFO mass would have held Earth gases in a constant one of atmospheric mass....even night time would have been alight.

The circumstance said that the human scientist activated ground fission conversion and once activated the incoming UFO Sun attack was not stopped, it increased and became worse until all life self combusted as the science designer/inventor, being human male/close small Nature.

The Moses AI recorded memories, therefore prove that they owned interactive ground recording with life...why dinosaurs are seen in clouds and images in the clouds is stated to be due to ground fission.

If Earth owned day/night the gases would be no different to what they are today actually, for they sit in the state historically empty pressurized and deep cold out of space...that body history, space has never altered its presence, just expanded by how much more mass is consumed...leaving spaces.

Heated space is therefore previous owner of mass removed/consumed.

The theme said Earth lost its balances of EVEN 12/12 into EVE.

The UFO Sun attack ended, when it eventually hit the Temple that had been built on the mount of Ararat, when the ICE Age would have been activated as the end/journey of the UFO night time sky burning history.

Having day light as a held constant would have been why the Tree Nature was gigantic also.

The history is the EQUALS answer to the formula and applied constant, which is FORCED upon the Nature, it never existed expressed. It is evaluated historically when no life existed on Earth, which is not a natural water based Earth life constant bio life/light condition.

Science light is the illuminated gas light, not natural day light.

Therefore when science claims I can create, their invention destroys to gain a creation that equals their answer to a formula that does not exist in any natural state...for empty space nothing is actually already present, is natural and is self owned as empty space...and when you infer a formula it means your intent is to increase empty space and expand empty space to being as a HOT DENSE state, in theory.

Im sorry, but I didn't understand a single word of that

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh please.
They're following a certain interpretation of the evidence.

Yes. A rational one. One that has explanatory power, can be independenly verified and which is consistent with other independent lines of evidence that are "interpreted" in the same rational way.

Again, one that supports a natural cause

No. One that leads to the conclusion of a natural cause.
See, it's you who's trying to presume the answer. YOU are the one who requires the evidence to fall in line with a priori beliefs.

In science, you don't do that. Instead, you let the evidence lead you to the conclusion. And if the conclusion happens to be different then your a priori belief... well then... tough luck.

, because the Designer can't be falsified...

Neither can inter-dimensional unicorns or undetectable graviton fairies.

therefore, the Source has to be ignored!

No. What is being ignored, are assertions that aren't, and even can't be, supported by evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is really unfair. Your sweeping generalization, that I 'deny science,' is simply not true.

Except when it comes to science that is in contradiction with your religious beliefs.

I love science

Except when it comes to science that is in contradiction with your religious beliefs.


You can't honestly stand there and claim that you don't deny or ignore science when your worldview includes literally rejecting and denying the consensus of 99.7% of scientists that work in, or who's work is related to, fields like genetics, evolutionary biology, molecular biology, bio-chemistry, paleontology, anatomy, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics, virology, etc etc etc.

Be serious please.
SURELY you are aware the extremely vast majority of scientists in such fields, or scientists full stop, all accept evolution theory as the unified field theory of the biological sciences.....

SURELY you aren't going to pretend as if evolution deniers are anything more then an extremely small marginal minority of the scientific community, the vast majority of which don't even have any affiliation with the biological sciences?

 

[We Never Know]

I largely agree, although I would say that trial and error is comparable to current science, since both are attempts to derive general rules about nature and life that can be used to facilitate achieving desired outcomes, whether that's discovering how to make beer turn out like you want it, or pottery, or or spears, or rockets into space.

It's all the same thing - make observations, generate and test hypotheses, and keep those that work and discard those that didn't. What was Edison with all of those various materials for bulb filaments if not both science and trial and error in search of usable ideas that allow us to control outcomes such as lighting up a room at night with the flick of a switch.

I agree. However if I had said it was comparable with current science it would have been deemed wrong lol

 

[We Never Know]

Trial and error are not confined to branches and fields of science.

Refining and fine-tuning involved all aspects of life.

Take for instance in Ancient Greece, for instance, arts, like sculpture and painting were far more simplistic, sculptures in the Early Archaic period, were simplistic in styles, but show gradual improvements over time in the Late Archaic period, flowering in the Classical Age and then the Hellenistic period.

That refinement come from arts, not science. It is the same with crafts and literature.

The ancient Greeks were very proud of their physical prowess, and were interested in all sort of sports. And while part of these came from being gifted and talented, they have developed systems of exercises to improve their health and their athletic skills. They got better at developing new methodology of training and exercises. These “improved” exercises were developed over time, through trial and error, but without science getting involved in them.

Science is a tool, like mathematics is a tool. The difference between science and all other areas of disciplines, is the ability to explain the phenomena and test it. Not all trial and error involved science.

No one claimed trial and error were confined to science. Nice straw man though.

 

[cladking]

It is not only possible to think without faith, it is desirable, and a skill that can and should be developed. We simply don't want any ideas added to our mental map of reality that haven't been tested and demonstrated to be true lest we make a wrong turn using a faulty map and not successfully anticipate outcomes (arrive at our desired destination), and there is no need to once one learns how to avoid uncritical belief.

That's the process. Competing ideas are tested in areas where their predictions diverge to determine which is more useful in making such predictions. Successful ideas are kept and improved where possible ones, and unsuccessful ones modified until they are successful or else discarded if that cannot be done. In this way, we accumulate a fund of tested, trustworthy knowledge to help us achieve our goals.

No. I am an agnostic atheist. I've told you - I've learned to eliminate faith fro y life. As a young atheist, I was sure that there was nogod. Later, I recognized that I had no experiment, observation, argument, or algorithm to rule gods out, but had done so anyway. I recognized that as a leap of faith and corrected it as I did all other beliefs that had slipped in uncritically before I learned how to avoid faith-based thinking. It was necessary to reconsider the things I believed and to notice why I believed them, which might be for insufficient or no reason.

Your thinking is good but I don't believe it goes nearly far enough. The quantitative gap between what you believe and reality are so great that it is a qualitative difference just as "survival of the fittest" is wrong.

Yes, it is necessary to jettison beliefs to study science and this includes the belief that there is no God. But it is impossible to not be subject to the beliefs imparted by language, definitions, and axioms. To do this we must try to adjust our perspective to factor out other beliefs and always keep in mind that we can't even identify all of our beliefs. You can't factor out beliefs you don't see you have. How does an evolutionary biologist factor out a belief that "species" exist when he can't even see a "rabbit" but merely member of the species? How can anyone factor out a belief that 2 + 2 = 4 when it's central to the way we think? Despite the fact that there are no two identical things in existence we each believe that if we had two groups of two things we'd have four things. We learn that if we ask for two pieces of candy we often have twice as "much" and never get a lecture on the differences between two tootsie rolls. And then we vary rarely notice that these beliefs affect our daily lives including the way we calculate and perform science. We rarely notice that we are not communicating our ideas because each listener always takes a different meaning.

We don't notice that each of our models are different so when we perform calculations it's not at all unusual to get different answers or that only some of the answers are "wrong" while contradictory answers can each be right.

There is always lots of consensus in opinion because we do tend to share axioms and this is more true in the age of science. But sharing opinions and beliefs is NOT evidence that we are all correct. The magic trick that is technology is NOT evidence that our beliefs in science are correct OR that we understand the theory represented by any of that technology. It is merely evidence that concepts and materials found in the lab can be reproduced outside the lab.

People are afraid of a perspective that takes away fundamental assumptions so they don't do it. Most people aren't even capable of playing around with assumptions and beliefs. But there is truth and reality that exists everywhere and this truth obeys things like "thermodynamics" and the "ten commandments". Reality and logic are apparently synonymous! Mathematics is apparently merely quantified logic. Science is the observation of reality manifest in experiment. Ancient science was the observation of reality manifest in logic. Religion is a confusion of ancient science.

In reality everything is a part of a whole and affects every other thing in an infinite number of way. This is very much true for all human thought and and action as well. We each affect one another and our ideas each are a part of a whole despite the fact we are individuals and exercise total autonomy and free will. Such concepts are apparent to all living things other than those who speak and think in our modern languages. We are out of step and the only payoff is that we get to have the magic created by understanding a tiny bit of the logic that is reality; ie- technology. This payoff does not include omniscience nor understanding of the framework of reality.

 

[We Never Know]

Neither.

Science is a means to acquire knowledge.
How that knowledge is used, is the responsability of those humans who use scientific knowledge to develop practical technology.

Atomic theory can be used to build atom bombs or it can be used to create medical equipment.

Having said that, I think it's rather obvious that scientific knowledge so far has lead to far more saying of lives then the termination thereof.

It isn't that wrong to say that there are more people alive TODAY then there have been throughout the entirety of human history before the 1800s. The current population size is in very large part because far less people die, thanks to modern scientific progress which lead to advances in agriculture, medicine, hygiene, transportation, communication, etc etc etc.



Nope. Science only brought us the scientific knowledge which then enabled engineers working for companies and governments to create and do such things. At the end of the day, these things are funded and commisioned by companies and governments.

Having said that, as pointed out above: practical application of scientific knowledge saved a LOT more lives then it caused deaths.

I agree. However IMO blaming guns or religion for killing people is wrong when it's the fault of people that use it for such.

 

[ManSinha]

Well it is very interesting that you maintain strict adherence to the sciences, and yet you do have a faith in God!

@Dan From Smithville is not alone - I am in the same boat - a scientist and a physician with expertise in computer programming - and yet I have intense faith in the divine - so the two are not entirely incompatible - my leanings are more towards the Deist belief system but like I have said I have experiences that convince me of a greater presence / power - I am unable to demonstrate that to others which is why you do not see me starting threads proclaiming that my way is the "true" or "only" way - in fact my scriptures acknowledge that it is not - just one of the simpler ways

 

[We Never Know]

@Dan From Smithville is not alone - I am in the same boat - a scientist and a physician with expertise in computer programming - and yet I have intense faith in the divine - so the two are not entirely incompatible - my leanings are more towards the Deist belief system but like I have said I have experiences that convince me of a greater presence / power - I am unable to demonstrate that to others which is why you do not see me starting threads proclaiming that my way is the "true" or "only" way - in fact my scriptures acknowledge that it is not - just one of the simpler ways

Interesting view. If I may ask, do you attribute anything to the devine or is it simply personal experiences for your faith?

 

[gnostic]

No one claimed trial and error were confined to science. Nice straw man though.

In my previous reply before the last post, I gave you some examples of how primitive people made alcohol and grew and smoke tobacco.

You respond with this plus a definition of “Trial and error” from wiki:

Trying to come up with taste and quality of the alcohol they brewed and the tobacco they grew was trial and error.
It's not comparable to current science but it was a primitive science

Trial and error is a fundamental method of problem-solving.[1] It is characterized by repeated, varied attempts which are continued until success,[2] or until the practicer stops trying.

Trial and error - Wikipedia

While the wiki definition you quoted, didn’t say “science”, you did with the “primitive science”.

This forum is a debate section, and while I will what you quoted or cited, I was responding to YOUR view, and not what you have quoted.

Debating is at least two ways conversation, so it is important to me to respond to YOUR view, and not simply to focus only on part of the article you have quoted.

And by responding to yours - “primitive science” with my very last reply, I was hardly using straw man.

Don’t you agree?

 

[We Never Know]

In my previous reply before the last post, I gave you some examples of how primitive people made alcohol and grew and smoke tobacco.

You respond with this plus a definition of “Trial and error” from wiki:



While the wiki definition you quoted, didn’t say “science”, you did with the “primitive science”.

This forum is a debate section, and while I will what you quoted or cited, I was responding to YOUR view, and not what you have quoted.

Debating is at least two ways conversation, so it is important to me to respond to YOUR view, and not simply to focus only on part of the article you have quoted.

And by responding to yours - “primitive science” with my very last reply, I was hardly using straw man.

Don’t you agree?

Yes "I" called it primitive science because it was primitive and it was science. It had nothing to do with my link.
However my link shows many examples of trial and error in science throughout it and even states.... "The scientific method can be regarded as containing an element of trial and error in its formulation and testing of hypotheses. Also compare genetic algorithms, simulated annealing and reinforcement learning – all varieties for search which apply the basic idea of trial and error."

I guess we will have to settle on different opinions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That radiation does not tell us there was creation by God. Nor does it tell us that we had the many step process you believe in. It tells us there is radiation!

No, it tells you only that. It tells evidence based thinkers something entirely different. People trained in science and critical thinking see more than you do. You choose to be blind to reality because it contradicts your faith based ideas about what it was supposed to look like.

Nor is the radiation confirmation of the theory.

Actually, it is.

The radiation we see would match what we might expect if the silly pile of beliefs posited by so called science were valid.

Nope. If your beliefs were correct, there would be no cosmic microwave background. It was created when the universe cooled enough that neutral matter became stable. You won't find that in Genesis.

The details were predicted and confirmed. The theory is correct.

Prove it!

There is no duty to attempt to prove anything to a faith based thinker. Proving is done with evidence and sound argument requires that the individual is willing and sufficiently trained to consider evidence and arguments applied to it. The faith based thinker simply won't do that, so there is no obligation to try.

Your claims and so called predictions are based on a whopping and steaming pile of beliefs.

The science is correct. It's successful predictions confirm that to reason and evidence based thinkers. If you ever chose that path to knowledge, you would agree.

It's the mythology that is false. There was no six days of creation, no global flood or first human beings, for example. Those were wrong guesses, and they've been disproven.

They operate only in the physical world and by doing so have excluded any possibility of spirits. They are religiously anti spiritual!

There is no other reality apart from the physical world. Supernaturalism is another wrong guess. Anything that it is claimed is undetectable even in principle is nonexistent. It is absurd to presume that such a realm could impact our universe, but our universe could not detect much less impact it. Your talking about two billiard balls, one capable of moving the other, but the impacted ball unable to knock the other, or interact with it in any other way under any conditions. When you require that that be the case, you are talking about the nonexistent.

This is what is wrong with believing by faith rather than requiring evidence. You end up believing wrong guesses. Why would you want to do that to yourself?

The sine qua non of a correct idea is that it can be used to anticipate outcomes better than competing formulations. Science generates correct ideas using its empirical method. We know they are correct by their fruits - they work. Poli vaccine prevents polio. Electric lights come on at night with the flick of a switch. Space probes leave earth and rendezvous with their intended targets. These things alone tell us that the method that elucidated the principles necessary to accomplish these stunning feats is valid.

Contrast that with failed guesses like Christianity and astrology. They generate zero useful ideas, the sine qua non of a wrong idea. That's what wrong ideas do - nothing useful.

Blood letting was another wrong idea, equally sterile - or worse, counterproductive. Where the intent was to cure, the outcome was often to hasten death. When medicine became an empirical science and threw out its faith based beliefs about humors, it was at last capable of serving humanity.

The data is subjected to a rigorous belief system. It cannot take them anywhere! They are staked to the ground and slaves to their own imposed limits.

You're confusing science with religion. Science imposes no limits on what it discovers. Scripture is fossilized, and burdened with wrong guesses.

I doubt you believe the bible anyhow.

Why should he? We also don't believe the Iliad. Or Star Wars. Fiction is fiction.

So you disagree with God.

No, we reject the claims and commands of people speaking for a mythical god - all such gods, not just yours. Why wouldn't we?

 

[ManSinha]

If I may ask, do you attribute anything to the devine or is it simply personal experiences for your faith?

Thanks for asking

As I may have posted before - I find the divine an additional entity to thank based on my beliefs that one exists
I shall give you a concrete example
I manage a team of 36 and perhaps over 50 indirect reports
We often have tough audits and tight deadlines (healthcare)
So on the many occasions that things go as smoothly as planned - I shall sometimes get my team Starbucks gift cards or something similar as a token of appreciation BUT I also give my thanks to the divine for aligning the stars that none of my team had a distraction such as illness or personal injury or the emergent care of a loved one to keep them from contributing - you may scoff at this but I just find reasons to be thankful for successful functioning of the "grand plan" so to speak.

In times of personal and professional setbacks - believe me I have had my share - I find it comforting to turn to the divine for succor and use this from my scripture allowing me to peacefully accept what may be happening

Again you may scoff or call it fantasy - your right to do so is not questioned - it simply works for me - and at the end of the day - that is what matters to me - I do not ask others to believe nor would I dream on imposing it on others - how could I? - I have no proof - just faith - it is just something that I am comfortable with and have been as long as I can remember.

 

[dad]

Really? I didn't know that! First time I heard of this..

More than eight people? Or less? Please let me know.... thanks.

Either way, it would disagree with the Apostle Peter, who said only 8 survived.

On the ark? Just eight people. Noah and four sons and their wives. But no one else lived but the people God put on the ark, and no animals either. (except sea life)

That means the Septuagint is in error on this point if it claims someone else survived.