Faith in no God

[ecco]

Well, given Last Thursdayism is as nebulous as it gets, I don't suppose there are any arguments against it. But then there are really no arguments for it.

Again, what you are saying is not easy to understand, so my replies may not address the whole issue as you see it. I'm kinda talking about something I don't understand, so cut me some slack if my reply makes no sense.

What's nebulous about it? Why is it any more nebulous than God created everything 6000 years ago? What's the difference?

The arguments against it are the same as the arguments against (your)GodDidIt.


What do you have a problem understanding? Is God creating books and libraries and trains and planes in mid-flight any different than God creating millions of animals who all knew how to eat, defecate and mate and A&E knowing how to speak and having the sense of morality that God instilled into them at their creation?

Please explain the difference.

 

[ecco]

You clearly have a deep misunderstanding of how science progresses.


The finding that orbits are ellipses, not circles, did not alter the fact that planets went around the sun.

Einstein's concepts of gravity did not obviate Newton's. It expanded on them.

Some of Darwin's ideas were incorrect. That does not take away from the general concept of Evolution. The use of DNA did not show that the concept of "evolutionary trees" was wrong, it just became a better tool for the placement of individual species.


The only thing that will occur over the next 2000 years is the finding of ever more detailed information on evolution and abiogenesis. But there will always people like you who deny, deny, deny, just like there are people today supporting geocentricity and a flat earth.

Another, "clearly you don't understand science" comment. Very old and well worn.

Scientific method summerized:

1. Question
2. Research
3. Hypothesis
4. Experiment
5. Data Analysis
6. Conclusion

There, I understand it. You on the other hand, as shown by your conclusion that I don't understand it, do not understand it. I wish everybody here would read this reply and put the stupid accusation to rest once and for all.

"There, I understand it." Really? You don't understand it at all. I said you didn't know how science progresses. You copy and paste the basics of the Scientific Method and assert: There, I understand it.

Why don't you copy and paste Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and then proclaim that you understand it?

You didn't even understand my comment about how science progresses.

Therefore, everyone reading this exchange has every right to continue to make (not so) stupid accusations.

.... However most of the folks here seem to think that all future conclusions will remain the same, ergo, no need for the other five. Some science that is!

Your comment about what "most folks" think is nonsense and is just another of the comments you make with no justification or understanding. I gave you examples where the conclusions did not stay the same. Your entire response shows that you have great difficulty understanding even basic English.

 

[rrobs]

What's nebulous about it? Why is it any more nebulous than God created everything 6000 years ago? What's the difference?

The arguments against it are the same as the arguments against (your)GodDidIt.


What do you have a problem understanding? Is God creating books and libraries and trains and planes in mid-flight any different than God creating millions of animals who all knew how to eat, defecate and mate and A&E knowing how to speak and having the sense of morality that God instilled into them at their creation?

Please explain the difference.

As I said, I'm not sure what Thursdayism even is. I don't think anybody but you has ever used that word, hence the nebulousity. Is that difficult to understand?

Of course God creating books, libraries, etc is different that creating animals. What kind of question is that? Do I really need to explain the difference? You might begin by asking yourself if God even created books, libraries, etc. Hopefully you won't need my help, because I'd have no idea how to answer your question.

 

[rrobs]

Your comment about what "most folks" think is nonsense and is just another of the comments you make with no justification or understanding. I gave you examples where the conclusions did not stay the same. Your entire response shows that you have great difficulty understanding even basic English.

Your use of the words "entire response" exhibit a deep misunderstanding of English. Maybe "some" or even "most", but "entire" is not realistic. It shows a deep prejudice on your part, hardly scientific. The pseudo-scientists here are definitely more judgmental than most Christians I know. Christians at least understand God is the final judge, not any man.

 

[cladking]

Not as painful as seeing the delusional announce their greatness.

LOL.

It doesn't require "greatness" to match wits with you.

You do notice that even in the version of the method you found the last step is "communicate results"? Are we to believe experiment suddenly only has meaning when we tell another human being what we saw?

The soft "sciences" have actually added "peer review" as the last step. But all this is irrelevant. If there were only a single scientist in the entire world he might still practice science. The Professor couldda built a coconut telephone and gotten them all off the island even without peers (my theory is he liked Ginger). Reality is discovered by individuals not by communities.

Tell us about the time your amazing research on how the pyramids were REALLY constructed conducted, what experiments you did, etc.

My "theories" are not theories per se by our definitions. They are hypotheses based on observation and relevant experiment. If I'm right then they are certainly "theory" (thot) by ancient science.

Tell us all about your extensive experience with the REAL scientific method.

Do you actually believe I have no experience with the scientific method.

Even the slowest student 60 years ago was familiarized with the scientific method and metaphysics. Every individual had some understanding even though it might be highly limited. Today it appears that there's little time except for indoctrination.

And those children that think they use science just like grown-ups become creationist egotists.

And some grow up to correct all the misconceptions of people who disagree with them.

 

[ecco]

As I said, I'm not sure what Thursdayism even is. I don't think anybody but you has ever used that word, hence the nebulousity. Is that difficult to understand?

I do apologize. I presumed you knew about something called Google.

I know several eight and nine-year-olds who are quite proficient at looking up things.

 

[ecco]

rrobs said: ↑
Your comment about what "most folks" think is nonsense and is just another of the comments you make

Your use ...

Why did you quote my comments as your own in post #444?

 

[ecco]

Your use of the words "entire response" exhibit a deep misunderstanding of English. Maybe "some" or even "most", but "entire" is not realistic. It shows a deep prejudice on your part, hardly scientific. The pseudo-scientists here are definitely more judgmental than most Christians I know.

My comments to you do not need to be scientific in any sense of the word. After all, you base your core beliefs on the supernatural. There would be no point in trying to communicate with you scientifically.

There is nothing prejudicial in showing that you think copy-and-pasting is the same as understanding something.

Christians at least understand God is the final judge, not any man.

You should be ecstatic to know that there is no god to judge you. Do you really think a God would not be offended by your continued disrespect of the nature He created?