cladking
Well-Known Member
So you've reached conclusions which is by definition not what scientists do.
You can prove theory is wrong but then "theory" is not a conclusion and is only the current interpretation of experiment.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So you've reached conclusions which is by definition not what scientists do.
You are so philosophically up there with so many words that no one understands what you are saying.
Religion won't make bad people good.
Not walking is the outcome of a belief that you don't want to walk
Not collecting stamps is a belief that you don't want that type of hobby
Walking barefoot is actually skin shoe.
Having the TV (on the old TV's) was actually along with the channels
Nice play on words when you want it to say what you want it to say.
Your belief on not going to the doctor:
If you do not believe a fist is swing toward your nose:
- is a result of the belief that you are not sick
- Is a ridiculous decision because you could have a cancer that a checkup would have discovered
- You have made up a absurd example because you don't know what you are talking about
- You are about to be sucker punched
- You belief, if it is coming, will cause you to be on the floor (action/reaction)
No... what I see is an effort of people trying to construct a construct that is so ridiculous and then destroy what they constructed
As subduction said,
If you don't believe there is a God... then say so.
If you don't believe at this time because you don't have enough evidence - say you are an agnostic.
if you are against God, and what He stands for, then "say you are anti-God" (my addition)
Don't mince words and don't play with false analogies.
Actually it is what they do every day. The form hypotheses and then they test them. Those tests can never prove those hypotheses to be right, but they can prove them to be wrong. That is the purpose of the tests.So you've reached conclusions which is by definition not what scientists do.
Actually it is what they do every day. The form hypotheses and then they test them.
Because what you post is pretty much nonsense. It is not how science works. You are trying to make it all about interpretation and that is what the scientific method strives to avoid. It is why we have a scientific method in the first place. It is why there is a clear definition of what qualifies as evidence.It's like you don't even read your own posts.
A good scientist never reaches a conclusion. He can neither prove nor disprove anything except he can certainly "disprove" theory. But then "theory" is no a conclusion, it is the current interpretation of experiment hence disproving theory is really just "proving" the interpretation to be in error.
Why should I have to keep repeating the same things?
Over and over believers in science keep reaching conclusions and implying they have answers. Scientists normally don't do this.
So no actual shoes, just jokes about feet that have no shoes."Corn shoe". "Skin shoe". "Birthday shoes". "Slipper fillers". "Double amputee devices". "Horse shoe". "Shoe footed". "Foot shoed".
Perhaps the problem is the question.
Anybody can make a semantical argument and that's what's going on when "agnostic" and "atheist" have the same meaning.
You don't really make a coherent argument here.No... what I see is an effort of people trying to construct a construct that is so ridiculous and then destroy what they constructed
I'm not sure why you have a problem with this.As subduction said,
If you don't believe there is a God... then say so.
If you don't believe at this time because you don't have enough evidence - say you are an agnostic.
if you are against God, and what He stands for, then "say you are anti-God" (my addition)
Don't mince words and don't play with false analogies.
Easily. Curiously I did just that recently with an 8 year old.
Induction is language. Language is not logical. One can invent hypothesis with induction or even use it to help in experiment design but it is never science.
Again, I repeat, all beliefs are wrong beliefs and scientists don't reach conclusions so should have no beliefs (per se).
Have you read the old testament? The Father has done and commanded genocide.Wrong. Jesus said to love your enemies. He said to bring the children to him...he healed and never killed anyone. He said he came to set the captives free...He died for every single person. He's a loving God who doesn't endorse any of the things you said.
The OT is shadows and types...it doesn't give us the whole nature of God...yes God allowed killing in the OT...he even wiped out humanity once...But what did he desire?Have you read the old testament? The Father has done and commanded genocide.
Why should we care what god desires?The OT is shadows and types...it doesn't give us the whole nature of God...yes God allowed killing in the OT...he even wiped out humanity once...But what did he desire?
He created man for communion with him and men rejected him completely, except for a handful of them.
His ultimate plan was to become human like those who hated him to save them from what they deserved. But people don't read that far apparently. They get stuck on God getting rid of people who hated him. Only God has the right to judge who lives and who doesn't.
We all deserve death but he offers mercy.
Because it's the only thing that ultimately matters. Otherwise it's just:Why should we care what god desires?
That is not a why. That nothing but a rephrasing of your previous assertion that we should care what God desires. So again. Why should I what your God desires?Because it's the only thing that ultimately matters. Otherwise it's just:
" Shadows and dust Maximus, shadows and dust!"
Because he will judge you some day soon.That is not a why. That nothing but a rephrasing of your previous assertion that we should care what God desires. So again. Why should I what your God desires?