• 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!

Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Sonofason said:
"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."
"A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently."
"A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time."
What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory

Is the Big Crunch a cosmological theory?
Is the Big Freeze a cosmological theory?
What about the Big Rip? Is that a theory?
Which of these are scientific theories, and which are not?
Click to expand...
So can anyone tell me how a theory can possibly be rejected when a theory is supposed to be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts?
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
disciple said:
No, see that is where you are wrong. You assume that I fill any gaps with theism just because they are gaps, but that isn't the case, and in fact it isn't 'filling the gaps with god' that I do anyway. I am presenting an idea of intelligence, intent, and or consciousness into creation, or at least keeping that option open, you are putting 'god' into this more than I am.
Clearly you don't understand my position, yet you continue to criticize, this makes no sense.
Click to expand...
What makes no sense is your claim that one has to have an alternative to point out problems in your claim.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Sonofason said:
No, he's right. You poison conversations with childlike personal attacks .
Click to expand...
No, he is not right.
One does not have to have an "alternative" explanation in order to point out problems with a claim.

How is it my fault your claims cannot hold up against "childlike attacks"?
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Sonofason said:
Perhaps I ought to have been more clear.
Please tell me how a theory can possibly be rejected by science when a theory is supposed to be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts?
Click to expand...
what scientific theory is rejected by science?

Please note that ID/Creation is not a scientific theory
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Sonofason said:
So can anyone tell me how a theory can possibly be rejected when a theory is supposed to be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts?
Click to expand...
Sorry mate, I have no idea what you are asking for - or why.

I know what 'theory' means.

What theory do you imagine was rejected?
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
what scientific theory is rejected by science?

Please note that ID/Creation is not a scientific theory
Click to expand...
Is the Big Crunch a cosmological theory?
Is the Big Freeze a cosmological theory?
What about the Big Rip? Is that a cosmological theory?
Which of these are scientific theories, and which are not?
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Sonofason said:
Is the Big Crunch a cosmological theory?
Is the Big Freeze a cosmological theory?
What about the Big Rip? Is that a cosmological theory?
Which of these are scientific theories, and which are not?
Click to expand...
I do not know enough about them to answer your question.

Are you going to answer mine?
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Mestemia said:
This is the second time you flat out refused to name a scientific theory that has been rejected by science.

Why is that?
Click to expand...
Because you are going to answer my questions first.

You gave a response that you didn't know enough about the Big Freeze, the Big Crunch, and the Big Rip to answer my question. When you do know enough about these, and you do answer the question, I will answer your question.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Sonofason said:
Because you are going to answer my questions first.

You gave a response that you didn't know enough about the Big Freeze, the Big Crunch, and the Big Rip to answer my question. When you do know enough about these, and you do answer the question, I will answer your question.
Click to expand...
Ah, you are afraid.
No problem.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Sonofason said:
Then I will try to refrain from asking you these difficult questions.
Click to expand...
You just posted to me that you wanted a polite exchange without tue personal attacks - and now insult me simply for asking you to clarify.

Why behave like that?
 
D

Dr. Strange

Member
All that is said above is still man's perception. Not your God's. Christianity is man's perception. Jesus was a revolutionary. He was Jewish. Jesus was not Christian and if one attempts to understand the Early Church one sees that what we call Christianity is just man's perception and, not Jesus' perception. What we call the NT was written long after any of Jesus' disciples. What did Jesus teach? The OT and what they did not understand then. Man made Jesus, Christ.

Sonofason said:
I'm not sure how to respond. To me, this all sounds like nonsense. Of course Jesus wasn't a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Of course this is all man's perception. No man has God's perception. To say that everything that mankind perceives is man's perception is nothing less than nonsense. It's saying nothing at all. It has no meaning whatsoever. Of course everything that every man could ever possibly perceive can never be anything more than a man's perception.

Did you have a point?
Click to expand...

Interesting. I made my point.

"A Christian is a follower of Christ." You got that backwards. First comes Jesus then comes Christians making Jesus the Christ. Man's perception.

No man can comprehend God. To know God is to have faith in God. Nothing more. Nothing less. Kierkegaard said it best, "A leap of faith." Nothing that man can perceive, including the Bible is going to be enough to comprehend God.

If God exists it is because man perceives God.

Or,

If man perceives God then God is just a perception.

Any way you put it, whether there is a God or not, man does not comprehend.

And that includes me.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Sonofason said:
Is the Big Crunch a cosmological theory?
Is the Big Freeze a cosmological theory?
What about the Big Rip? Is that a theory?
Which of these are scientific theories, and which are not?
Click to expand...

All of which are theoretical if you bothered to look up any of the examples you posted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top