ManSinha
Well-Known Member
And what is your definition of a truthful religion? If you say "Islam" I shall tear that argument apart
-
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!
Theology is Falsifiable, thus, - Scientific.
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
perhaps.
But it is truth in and of itself.
Fallible humans are not capable of attaining 'Truth' in and of itself.
McBell
Unbound
if you say so.
No, by the evidence. Far too many claim to know the 'Truth' making diverse conflicting claims as to what 'Truth' claims are. Thank goodness science does not make any 'Truth' claims.
McBell
Unbound
which has nothing to do with my use of the word in the post you start this tangent on....
I notice that several have already mentioned this, but god of the gaps is a description of a view that some believers hold about the unexplained and not a name for God.
Religion is not science. Science is not religion.
Science might be used to analyze a religion, but it cannot determine or falsify the existence of God or any deity believed to exist.
Such a shame. The gap has been filled in and now scientists have spent the last 75 years trying to get people to understand the filling.
McBell
Unbound
Most people who claim "GodDidIt" use that answer instead of "I Do No Know".
I notice there are loads of theists who are scared to death to answer "I Do Not Know" when asked about religion or God or spirituality.
I have no idea why that is.
Just something I have observed.
When it comes to religion, there is so much I do not know, it leaves open a myriad of approaches to gain understanding. Religious people that claim to know, and absolutely, scare me.
While I am alive, I will continue to remain ignorant and seeking enlightenment. I can share personal opinions and relate experiences, but I cannot objectively relate those experiences in a way that you would agree that they are as I perceive them. I must recognize the possibility that what I perceive as a spiritual experience might have another explanation and I am taking my explanation on some faith.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
God of the gaps is not the name of a god. It is the name of a logical fallacy.
I have no idea how you would use science to disprove all proposed gods. You might use it to disprove some of the claims about the gods, but not necessarily the gods themselves. That does not make the existence of any of those gods true, though. It is just an affirmation that they are unfalsifiable claims.
Last edited:
Perhaps you are thinking about subjective religious beliefs, but I am not. Even if I were law can also have subjective beliefs. Things that are merely opinions are not falsifiable. If you believe that schools should have a 8" no touching rule, but someone else believes they should have a 7" no touching rule then there is a difference of opinion of 1". If two physicians have two exclusive opinions on the same patient, both diagnoses cannot be followed; and whatever happens to the patient it is not certain which opinion is best. Similarly a person cannot know with confidence about many religious opinions and can only practice on thing or another.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Is it better: "I do not know how God has did it."?
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
No, its just the everyday supporters of modern cosmology who take it as the whole truth and nothing but the truth when some one opposites the ideas.
The everyday layman armchair scientist don't count for much or anything of substance
Actually no, this is not true of any ot the sciences, including the sciences of cosmology where there is a healthy progressive develop of knowledge with healthy disagreement, and the acknowledgement that there are many things that we do not know.
Nothing in science is the whole truth.
McBell
Unbound
Since it is merely a long winded "GodDidIt", no.
Actually many religious beliefs do not amount to much more than human opinions. What you are citing above does not make any sense concerning law and medicine, particularly medicine. The knowledge and practice of medicine is based science, and not opinions.
By far most of the belief in religions is based on subjective (of the mind only) concerning the existence of God(s) and spiritual realms outside our physical existence, and believers have many diverse and conflicting beliefs and 'claims.'
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Non the less most debaters acts with simple emotional reactions if their "standing truth" i.e. the standing theories are questioned.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Theo was a term for God.
The o says a theist. So you named your own self, an Atheist who did not believe in God.
And said it was scientific supported...there is no God he says.
Okay, so you own a mind do you not?
You first lived a long time ago by human memory as a higher spiritual human form and life, as first male self.
You identify this reasoning by man/male digging up your own scientific evidence in deep earth digs that supply human evidence of advanced technology.
And you man/male own a story that says you are and were a Satanist who sent his human family to Hell by defining them to be God...just as you do today.
Meaning created and evolved from the planet, from volcanic hot burning gases that belong to stone...claiming that the gases evolved into bio life form as higher than a gas.
So how come the gases have not disappeared?
Your claim is that God is the stone and stone created bio life, the same exact statements that science owns as an a theist.
A scientist says, if I applied a theme and study about creation in a God sense I would quantify that everything was created from the state of Hell he says.
So places the beginning of all things into a state of burning.
Then builds a machine and says a beginning to end theme as a formula that is only owned by his male self, scientist, and his machine.
And so scientist says to the religious God spruiker you know very little about creation, yet you are the same person.
And try to convince everyone today that you are not.....then why is religion owner of science?
Spiritual humanity have always taught self is a human, self is a spiritual human, a natural human, owner of the freedom of will. When animals are living and interact naturally in a self destructive condition, then the Nature of the will only developed in the form of descriptive analogy that belongs to the conditions of what type of animal or maternal support the animal or self was given.
Animals brought up as babies can be a ferocious beast in their freedom of will environment, yet when Mothered in a human way can be the most loving.
A male/man group who enforced the will of God was only announcing his own human male group science will, the exact same group mentality in his orders that he still spruiks today.
The only human who is the correct human is a non scientist egotist, who knows that medical science was once owned only by the spiritual self who could tend to all conditions of life in harm. Medical science only evolved due to how much harm science has caused to the environment if you want to be truthful.
The term scientist and a theist, said I will take the presence of what I determined was God for first science theories and have it removed. The reason today that science says in that destructive psyche that it does not believe in God. Not God as the owned natural body of a planet in its natural form or God the human being male, as a life supported by the statements of God, why they were made.
The o says a theist. So you named your own self, an Atheist who did not believe in God.
And said it was scientific supported...there is no God he says.
Okay, so you own a mind do you not?
You first lived a long time ago by human memory as a higher spiritual human form and life, as first male self.
You identify this reasoning by man/male digging up your own scientific evidence in deep earth digs that supply human evidence of advanced technology.
And you man/male own a story that says you are and were a Satanist who sent his human family to Hell by defining them to be God...just as you do today.
Meaning created and evolved from the planet, from volcanic hot burning gases that belong to stone...claiming that the gases evolved into bio life form as higher than a gas.
So how come the gases have not disappeared?
Your claim is that God is the stone and stone created bio life, the same exact statements that science owns as an a theist.
A scientist says, if I applied a theme and study about creation in a God sense I would quantify that everything was created from the state of Hell he says.
So places the beginning of all things into a state of burning.
Then builds a machine and says a beginning to end theme as a formula that is only owned by his male self, scientist, and his machine.
And so scientist says to the religious God spruiker you know very little about creation, yet you are the same person.
And try to convince everyone today that you are not.....then why is religion owner of science?
Spiritual humanity have always taught self is a human, self is a spiritual human, a natural human, owner of the freedom of will. When animals are living and interact naturally in a self destructive condition, then the Nature of the will only developed in the form of descriptive analogy that belongs to the conditions of what type of animal or maternal support the animal or self was given.
Animals brought up as babies can be a ferocious beast in their freedom of will environment, yet when Mothered in a human way can be the most loving.
A male/man group who enforced the will of God was only announcing his own human male group science will, the exact same group mentality in his orders that he still spruiks today.
The only human who is the correct human is a non scientist egotist, who knows that medical science was once owned only by the spiritual self who could tend to all conditions of life in harm. Medical science only evolved due to how much harm science has caused to the environment if you want to be truthful.
The term scientist and a theist, said I will take the presence of what I determined was God for first science theories and have it removed. The reason today that science says in that destructive psyche that it does not believe in God. Not God as the owned natural body of a planet in its natural form or God the human being male, as a life supported by the statements of God, why they were made.