Noahs Ark

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry, if you are going to post a logical fallacy I'm going to comment on it. Put me on your ignore list since you just can't help but respond. I'll still point out what I believe to be faults in your posts.

As to trying to annoy you. First you are in charge of that, not me. Second I've pointed out on more than one occasion as to why I've followe dhte course I've followed (and you fail to recognize it) and continued to butt in where you we not invited. Yet you try and call me rude. As I have stated before, your sense of what is rude is screwed.

You told me you were just trying to annoy me. That's what YOU said.

Yes, when someone repeatedly asks you not to engage with them, and you persist, that's rude. For at least the fifth time, please stop. There are many other people here for you to enjoy bothering. Leave me alone.

Stalking, how amusing.

Much less amusing to the person who's being stalked.

SANDY: PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE. THANK YOU.

 

[darkendless]

There are many other people here for you to enjoy bothering. Leave me alone.

Lucky you. I think my last 6 posts directed at Sandy have been ignored. Tade places, i'll take up the mantle of common sense for a while?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sandy is not mistaken. It is unreasonable to believe that there is a God who does not have the power to do miracles. To present this God as contradiction to science in which either science or God are only possible is indeed a false dilemma. Science follows the rules of the natural world. The God who is capable of miracles is not bound by the nautural world.

No, Sandy is mistaken. Miracles reference something outside of natural possibilities. As the world is bound by natural law, so to may be God. This is not a "logical fallacy", it is actually a logical possibility.
Your problem is you cannot think outside of the biblical God. The omnipotent, omnipresent being who reveled himself to one tribe of nomads.
For your consideration...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No, Sandy is mistaken. Miracles reference something outside of natural possibilities. As the world is bound by natural law, so to may be God. This is not a "logical fallacy", it is actually a logical possibility.
Your problem is you cannot think outside of the biblical God. The omnipotent, omnipresent being who reveled himself to one tribe of nomads.
For your consideration...

Perhaps, you, then can explain to me how the existance of a God who can perform outside the realm of the natural sciences negates the existance of the natural sciences.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Perhaps, you, then can explain to me how the existance of a God who can perform outside the realm of the natural sciences negates the existance of the natural sciences.

Because the "belief" in a god can not be reconciled with the natural world.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because the "belief" in a god can not be reconciled with the natural world.

Who said anything about belief. I believe I used the term "existance."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

n

Who said anything about belief. I believe I used the term "existance."

If you are unable to prove what you claim to "exist"......it becomes your belief....

Fact is...there is no evidence for a global flood and every indication it never happened.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

n

If you are unable to prove what you claim to "exist"......it becomes your belief....

Fact is...there is no evidence for a global flood and every indication it never happened.

Allrighty then, now, back to, "Perhaps, [someone else], then can explain to me how the existance of a God who can perform outside the realm of the natural sciences negates the existance of the natural sciences.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Allrighty then, now, back to, "Perhaps, [someone else], then can explain to me how the existance of a God who can perform outside the realm of the natural sciences negates the existance of the natural sciences.

Because the natural sciences make no allowance for ANYTHING supernatural. The real world is ALL there is/was/will be. If there were a supernatural world then the most basic assumption of natural science is false. To wit: That the entire reality around us CAN be explained by the proper application of reason.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Because the natural sciences make no allowance for ANYTHING supernatural. The real world is ALL there is/was/will be. If there were a supernatural world then the most basic assumption of natural science is false. To wit: That the entire reality around us CAN be explained by the proper application of reason.

Isn't reasonable to say that all of the explanations of the reality of the universe as we see and experience can be explained by natural laws except during the intervention by God. All this does is negate the "assumption" by science that everything can be explained.

IT also means that there was a false dilemma offered when it is said that only God or science can exist. It's is possilbe that both are false. There may be no God and science may not be able to explain everything.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Isn't reasonable to say that all of the explanations of the reality of the universe as we see and experience can be explained by natural laws except during the intervention by God. All this does is negate the "assumption" by science that everything can be explained.

IT also means that there was a false dilemma offered when it is said that only God or science can exist. It's is possible that both are false. There may be no God and science may not be able to explain everything.

No, it is NOT reasonable for the assumption of a god and a supernatural world is NOT reasonable. There is zero evidence for any such thing. To make the assumption anyway is both illogical and foolish.

If science cannot explain reality then you need to show what aspect cannot be understood. So far, we have found NOTHING that either could not be explained by natural law or lacks sufficient evidence to say it actually exists/happened. This is not to say we understand everything. Clearly we do not. But we have no reason to assume what we don't understand CANNOT be understood.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No, it is NOT reasonable for the assumption of a god and a supernatural world is NOT reasonable. There is zero evidence for any such thing. To make the assumption anyway is both illogical and foolish.

If science cannot explain reality then you need to show what aspect cannot be understood. So far, we have found NOTHING that either could not be explained by natural law or lacks sufficient evidence to say it actually exists/happened. This is not to say we understand everything. Clearly we do not. But we have no reason to assume what we don't understand CANNOT be understood.

Interesting. I totally agree and it was basically what I said. You just said it with way......more words.:clap

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Interesting. I totally agree and it was basically what I said. You just said it with way......more words.:clap

I get a nickle each. What can i say?

 

[the13th1]

Story for children.

 

[richardlowellt]

Story for children.

I wouldn't tell my children a story about an evil being who murdered millions of innocent people just because he was angry. Pregnant women and young children watching in horror as the water rose, scrambling to get to higher ground only to be slowly overtaken by the rising water, fathers watching and helpless to save their wives and children as the sank beneath the waters, gasping as water entered their lungs, closing off their esophagus and slowly strangling, a most horrid death, and the animals where not spared either, millions drowning, all because this god was upset, why would anyone read such a horror story to a child?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I wouldn't tell my children a story about an evil being who murdered millions of innocent people just because he was angry. Pregnant women and young children watching in horror as the water rose, scrambling to get to higher ground only to be slowly overtaken by the rising water, fathers watching and helpless to save their wives and children as the sank beneath the waters, gasping as water entered their lungs, closing off their esophagus and slowly strangling, a most horrid death, and the animals where not spared either, millions drowning, all because this god was upset, why would anyone read such a horror story to a child?

You have it all wrong, Richard. You're telling the wrong part of the story.

The part you need to emphasize is the cartoon giraffes and elephants smiling and playing happily on a spacious ship as the sun shines and a rainbow jets through the sky. Not the misery and deaths of countless humans and animals. We can't have children thinking the God of the Bible is a mass murderer or something *chuckles*

 

[richardlowellt]

You have it all wrong, Richard. You're telling the wrong part of the story.

The part you need to emphasize is the cartoon giraffes and elephants smiling and playing happily on a spacious ship as the sun shines and a rainbow jets through the sky. Not the misery and deaths of countless humans and animals. We can't have children thinking the God of the Bible is a mass murderer or something *chuckles*

Yes, of course your right, I forgot all about the dishonesty of religious teachings.

 

[the13th1]

I wouldn't tell my children a story about an evil being who murdered millions of innocent people just because he was angry. Pregnant women and young children watching in horror as the water rose, scrambling to get to higher ground only to be slowly overtaken by the rising water, fathers watching and helpless to save their wives and children as the sank beneath the waters, gasping as water entered their lungs, closing off their esophagus and slowly strangling, a most horrid death, and the animals where not spared either, millions drowning, all because this god was upset, why would anyone read such a horror story to a child?

Hey Richard, I meant the Bible thing is just a "story" & religious people don't teach it to their children in the way as pointed by you. They paint a very scary picture of the world & then invoke the idea of god as a way out of it. Actually, you painted a very real picture of the world, & this is exactly what one would expect in the realm of 'Evolution'.

 

[Sententia]

Noah's Ark = Obviously fake.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Noah's Ark = Obviously fake.

Short and sweet....I like it....:cover: