riley2112
Active Member
Yea , no religion going in , and trying to use religion to get out.:run: Hey I still think your bug is cool.
-
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!
Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?
- Thread starter Matthew78
- Start date
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Antonyms of empirical:I think I have to disagree with you on this one. And here is why.
em·pir·i·cal
   /ɛmˈpɪrɪ
kəl/Show Spelled[em-pir-i-kuh
l]
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory,
The Bible was written on experience Talk to any believer or any faith and A am pretty sure that they will tell you of their experience or observation of Their God. Or do I just have the wrong word here.
abstractivea prioriconjectural, divinatory, hypothetical, hypothetic, supposed, supposition, suppositious, supposititiousnotional, speculativemetaphysical
riley2112
Active Member
ok, :thud: now , how did you get the bug.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It is a gif file in my signature.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Everything... even sci-fi movies and Dungeons and Dragons video games are based at least in some respect on empirical evidence.... those empirical phenomena are then combined with the particular slant the person wants to take, such as super-powerful alien races who manipulate more primitive species or an incredibly powerful dragon looking to enslave mankind and destroy the world.... oh btw those were examples from the movies and video games, not from religions... honest.
Just because something is created using empirical evidence doesn't mean much. What is more important is the reasoning that people use to take that empirical evidence and combine it and interpret it to arrive at their particular narrative.
Just because something is created using empirical evidence doesn't mean much. What is more important is the reasoning that people use to take that empirical evidence and combine it and interpret it to arrive at their particular narrative.
riley2112
Active Member
You be making me work for it tonight.lol I think I will set this out and watch a little television with the family. But I do want one of those bug.
gnostic
The Lost One
muhammad_isa said:
You have no idea what "evidence" is, relating to science, do you?
Evidence is something that we can observe, measure (or quantify), test, and test repeatedly, find more evidences to support the previous finding.
Before any hypothesis can become accepted scientific theory, all of the above, need to rigorously tested repeatedly.
If there are signs, there should be evidences.
But you are making bold, but very baseless claim, if you say the God created the earth, plants, animal and human.
Where are these signs that connect natural phenomena with God?
It is simply belief, faith and heavy doses of wishful thinking.
If God truly knew everything, then why didn't God endowed his prophets, like Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad with advanced knowledge in science?
If the Qur'an contained scientific miracles or scientific signs, then why is there no a single law of physics or mathematical equation to prove that God know everything?
Like or not, you're basing your claim on faith and faith alone that you think God created everything. There is no science involved in your claim, because there are no evidences. There is not even accepted scientific theory that God exist.
Last edited:
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I see yout 'title' is "the lost one" .. looks like you will remain that way, unless you change your narrow understanding of the meaning of evidence..
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind
- Albert Einstein -
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Empirical Evidence has no basis in inference and relies instead on observational evidence that can be verified and tested independently of the initial observer.
If one "sees the signs" of a Creator, but cannot have those "signs" independently verified and tested through scientific peer review, then there is no Scientific Evidence, only inference by the initial observer.
If one "sees the signs" of a Creator, but cannot have those "signs" independently verified and tested through scientific peer review, then there is no Scientific Evidence, only inference by the initial observer.
Photonic
Ad astra!
So, presented with empirical evidence, you would rather deny the challenge rather then present your own.
I don't see this conversation ever going anywhere, and I am unsure why you are even communicating with other humans over it if you have no interest in it.
Photonic
Ad astra!
You know, often I see that quoted.
The sad thing is, it is often quoted in the incorrect context. By religion Einstein meant "The religious feelings one would associate with worship."
Worship of the universe should be the driving force behind scientific pursuit. The true passion of knowledge.
That would be like me quoting the Qu'ran on violent subjects without the context. See how that works?
riley2112
Active Member
Why I am even communicating with other humans if I have no interest. I find you and your statement arrogant and offensive. Just because I have a life (which you should look into getting) and I did not have the time to engage in conversation at that time, does not mean I can not throw in my two cents and discuss it at a later time. One more thing, the way you jump in on things that you have no knowledge of is more that likely why you will continue to be unsure of anything. So just chill, OK. If you really want to know what I think about atheists and theist let me know and I will be happy to tell you. But don't ask unless you really want to know , because I hold little belief that you will find it pleasing.
Photonic
Ad astra!
I find this post highly ironic.
riley2112
Active Member
May I ask in what way.
riley2112
Active Member
astrophysicist ? With the education you must have and what you do. I am even more puzzled by your post.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I take it you are not going to answer his points?
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I'm afraid that's not what it's about..
Do scientists come to theologists when they want something verified? No!
Nor do theologists go to scientists when they want something verified..
If you wish to see science as "the 'b' all and end all", that's up to you!
Would you consider statistical evidence as 'scientific'? Many scientific hypothesise rely on the results of various tests .. What confidence interval is acceptable? 50% .. 70% .. or 90% ?
Actually, scientists can't agree amongst themselves whether God exists, any more than anybody else
The thing about belief in God, is that as well as the evidence that surrounds us .. people, scriptures, the wonder of the universe etc, we have our own conscience.
People who constantly ask for evidence of the existence of God are not only annoying, but rather immature, imo.
There must be a better way of debating .. either come up with some interesting points .. or shut up!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You: Prove God exists
Me: Can you prove that He doesn't
You: I don't have to prove it, but you do
Me: What an interesting debate .. I'm sure we've all learnt a lot
[ I can do anything better than you can ,, no you can't .. yes I can .. no you can't yes I can .. .. .. hello, hello .. I smell the blood of a 'devil man' ]
Last edited:
Photonic
Ad astra!
I'll put it another way for you.
Well, Einstein was a scientific pantheist, as are most physicists you will find. I technically consider myself one at the same time as being an atheist.
it has to do with the spirituality you assign that which you study. For example, I know that we are all made of elements forged in the hearts of a star billions of years ago. The knowledge of that gives you a certain perspective of things. I do not doubt that as a scientist Dawkins is probably a very spiritual man himself. Maybe not in the way you recognize it, but I understand how he sees things.
Evolutionary Biology, as a quick example. Studying this makes you realize just how close we are to the life on this planet. The genetic trait that defines how long you sleep, for example, is the same in a fruit fly, suggesting a very distant concestor. (co-ancestor)
Copied this from my debate with Storm, I said this over there but it seems like you might appreciate it in this context as well.
riley2112
Active Member
Are there really any new interesting points that anyone can come up with. I mean stop and think for a min. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a wish-fulfillment factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.I'm afraid that's not what it's about..
Do scientists come to theologists when they want something verified? No!
Nor do theologists go to scientists when they want something verified..
If you wish to see science as "the 'b' all and end all", that's up to you!
Would you consider statistical evidence as 'scientific'? Many scientific hypothesise rely on the results of various tests .. What confidence interval is acceptable? 50% .. 70% .. or 90% ?
Actually, scientists can't agree amongst themselves whether God exists, any more than anybody else
The thing about belief in God, is that as well as the evidence that surrounds us .. people, scriptures, the wonder of the universe etc, we have our own conscience.
People who constantly ask for evidence of the existence of God are not only annoying, but rather immature, imo.
There must be a better way of debating .. either come up with some interesting points .. or shut up!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You: Prove God exists
Me: Can you prove that He doesn't
You: I don't have to prove it, but you do
Me: What an interesting debate .. I'm sure we've all learnt a lot :sarcasm:
And really what has any believer has that is new. We all have been using the same argument for centuries. Our Holy Book (insert title) says that God exist.
some people believe and some people don't. Talking about it is fun but why get bent out of shape about it.What about you? Why do you believe? Or why don't you? Are the theists simply confused, deluded, sheep-like people willing to believe whatever is told them? Are the atheists egotistical infidel recalcitrants who would stubbornly refuse to believe even if an angel appeared and proclaimed God's existence? But the single strongest reason, I feel, for believing in God, comes from personal experience. (It also seems to be the only major reason (apart from social pressures or convenience) for changing religions.) Many people feel that God is watching out for them--they've discovered blessings in their lives because of keeping God's commandments, for example, or perhaps they've received powerful answers to prayers. They've heard voices of warning or had feelings of premonition, cautioning them against danger. They've had feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church or read the scriptures. Others have had other inexplicable, incommunicable "religious experiences". Some have even seen miracles, such as healing the sick or raising the dead. Some people experience miraculous visions, or have prophetic dreams. Perhaps words are given or ideas suddenly appear from an unknown source--a person says something or does something spectacular and admits that it felt as if "something (or someone) else" was working through him. Such personal experiences are commonly found throughout the religious community. I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence. Conversely, most of the strong theists I know have had many such experiences. Some rely almost wholly on the experiences of others, but even with such, they've experienced some little "evidences" of their own.
Perhaps the theists are just deluded or feigning these experiences. Perhaps the atheists have many such experiences but they choose to ignore them. Honestly, I don't really know. It seems likely to me that, truly, the theists do experience such things just as factually as the atheists don't. As I said to talk about and compare ideas are great. However to say without a doubt that the way someone thinks is completely wrong is , well completely wrong.