shawn001
Well-Known Member
That would be a guess on your part though, even to the specific God you believe in as opposed to the millions of other God's people believe in.
-
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!
Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .
- Thread starter Jared Jammer
- Start date
That would be a guess on your part though, even to the specific God you believe in as opposed to the millions of other God's people believe in.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Do you fear from a devastating typhoon knowing it'll hit your home in the coming few hours ?
Will you stay at home and laughing at the others who chose to escape ?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
What? If I knew one was coming yes fear would kick in, but fear doesn't make you think clearly, that is a known fact and one thing I was trained in as a firefighter to recognize.
These aren't really questions are they but you making analogies to the end is coming yes, because they can't be actual questions.
“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”
FDR
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
For the sake of pedantic detail, there can be zero, in fact the indications are that the totality of the universe can only be zero. As demonstrated with such things as like that an action gives an equal and opposite reaction, making a totality of zero. So one can have something, while the totality is still nothing.
But this nothing can also be absent, so that no material exists, and then the logic of subjectivity states that we can still make the opinion that we are left with the spiritual domain from which is decided what is to be. Demonstrating the power of creationist logic, that it can describe creation.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I don't have any images for God.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Yeah but if they only want to fight on the side of the hill away from the city why not combat them there rather than listen to them taunt you from a position of unimportant while asserting victory? Meh. I hope that at some point in time I have debated or discussed these issues with creationists and that even though none have changed their mind throughout the debate will have dealt a blow that eventually changed their minds in the future.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Using that same logic, why not benevolent flying purple dragons?
There is no evidence for benevolent flying purple dragons, other than my preference for faith in benevolent flying purple dragons, right? Let's just make the exact same argument for benevolent flying purple dragons.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
You can't make an image for God, but we realize the effect of his existence and which is the universe.
We don't have to see the electrons flowing in a wire to know that it exist, but we realize it by its effect, you can't put God in a test to observe him and the universe is more than enough for us to realize his great power and intelligence.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
The very premise of this thread, and many others like it on the forum, is based on religionists from some branch or another attempting to either poke holes in evolutionary science or equate evolutionary hypotheses to creationists guessing games. They are absolutely against evolution. And to say that religion is against Heliocentrism is to be ignorant of the History of the Church. This thread, and entire associated subforum, is evidence of that. It's also evidence that religious frameworks are actively working against scientific advancement, as we can see with something like the quotes posted here from the Watchtower magazine purposefully spreading misinformation about evolutionary science in order to gain stronger adherents to the faith through ignorance. It's lunacy.
People have been burned alive for making valid, correct, accurate, and substantiated arguments.
Giordano Bruno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Copernican model was later expanded upon, of course, and these positions were later accepted by religion to be true... Similarly, people in other parts of the world today are being beheaded, castrated, or hanged for denying faith in some invisible supernatural being, aren't they?
Religions the world over, and from the beginning, have always been at conflict with any action or idea that openly threatens their vision of reality
In both examples above, the victims of these murders were 100% right in their assertions, yet they were killed because religion simply doesn't like the concept that there exists a better avenue for knowledge for understanding existence. If the realities that science discovers contradict the magic musings of religion, religion pushes back despite the fact that it has no grounds on which to do so...
Religion, so often, runs contradictory to science.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
You can't make an image for benevolent purple dragons, but you can see the effect of their existence, which is the universe...
Do you not see how this argument if flawed?
I understand that you have an emotional investment in your god, but try and at least see the argument you are making for what it is.
Your defense for your deity is no better than saying "Leprechauns dance on rainbows, and this is proven because we can see rainbows."
And the analogy for electrons is pretty skewed, because we can see and monitor electrons using the proper tools. We don't have to accept that they are there based on faith. You can go to the store right now, buy a volt meter, and watch electrons move in real time.
The extreme pedant in me can't help but point out that you'd need an ammeter to watch electrons move in real time; a volt meter will measure their potential to move. Yes, I know it's irrelevant, but..
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
You're correct, sir Pedantist
Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ammeter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I grovel at your feet and plead for forgiveness...
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
I know this is a metaphor for something else, but I want to extend it anyway as if it were an actual situation.
If it were a real situation, You forgot option #3: staying at home and praying to god to make the typhoon go away or spare you.
That's the one that bothers me, because it's so defeatist. Nature can be scary, but the one reason you have options to stay or flee at all is because we have meteorology and mass communication, products of scientific inquiry. Otherwise, #3 is all you have.
Last edited:
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I said to you that God can't be tested similar to the way we test electrons and it depends on your confidence whether to believe that creation were due to ID or by the inanimate nature.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
We do test electrons.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Option #3 can work with the idiots and not with sane people.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
...it is an error, because it is a fact that a decision is made, but opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.
Intelligent design is just a factual issue like any other factual issue. We can see as fact, how things are decided in the universe. Having found the decisions we can then still make the opinion the decision was divine, by God, or spiritually empty, etc.
So we can see that even many creationists do not understand the first thing about subjectivity....
However formally, in scripture, creationists are held to accept subjectivity is valid, no matter what they say on internet forums.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Yes we can test and observe electrons but we can't see electron.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
"Seeing" with our own eyes isn't really a very reliable way to observe something in the fields of science. The vast majority of "observations" are not through pure human sight. In fact very little is. Distinctions made that do use the human eyes are usually classified and quantified so it can go through deductions and processes of elimination in order to determine what it actually means. A good example of this is crash test dummies. We see the crash. We see the dummy. We see what the dummy does in the crash but what really actually matters is the un-seen observations of the measurements of g-forces being recorded by devices in the dummy. The rest really doesn't matter.
And the observations of what on the car held up and what didn't is also quantified and classified rather than simply judgments using the eyes.