McBell
Unbound
Nice try.hi,
i am sure, and you have brain and and resources to check by yourself not listing to other people even me
and i hope you will find answer and share with us
But you made the claim, YOU do the homework.
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!
Nice try.hi,
i am sure, and you have brain and and resources to check by yourself not listing to other people even me
and i hope you will find answer and share with us
If you define a creator as a "God", then of course all things would be considered such.
Even the smallest of motions impact the heaviest scales.
One word: ChocolateSimple, what evidence is there of there being a god, a higher being, or any of the like?
Ack, I've done that before. You've got plenty of skirt-smoothing and braid-pulling ahead of you again.
Not necessarily. If God is simply the creator then we disassociate the idea that God is also personal. Like a craftsman who creates supplies and lacks care whether its snowing or raining outside. If we say God is personal and cares for creation then we narrow down what God is and run into problems.
Testable hypotheses/claims can be proven or disproven which in relation to religion would be claims of divine intervention.
Untestable hypotheses/claims can't be proven or disproven such as the claim that God exists without any of the peripheral claims.
In science great efforts are made to minimise the influence of bias and if you don't get the answer you want then tough luck. If you try and fudge the results then usually it won't take long for you to be found out, especially when others try to reproduce your results.
Don't try and apply the poor investigative standards of the relgion to science.
This experiment proved that prayer was inneffective at reducing complications following surgery. It doesn't prove that God doesn't exists unless Gods existance is dependent on him answering prayers and nobody knows if this is the case.
Wishy washy nonsense. The reason why people utilise the scientific method is because it works and is the best system we currently have available to us. Alternative methods such as making things up and attributing it to supernatural agents didn't work despite its popularity in the past and continueing popularity now when people really should know better.
Insults and special pleading. You''ll need to do better than that
Its called skepticism which without a person is little more than a credulous fool. I've been skeptical of religious claims since I was a young child because quite frankly they are generally ridiculous.
Religion is science.
You can take the label of "skeptic" upon you, but that is just a facade. Atheism isn't "nuetral" skepticism, it's predenial.
Can you provide an example?
So then what leads you to think that theories are any more factual based than the existence of something beyond us?
Apply poor investigative standards of the religion to science? What?
Religion is science. The sooner you figure that out, the more efficient science will be.
Your right, great efforts are made to minimise the influence of bias other than that of science based logic. Science is just as dogmatic as the Pope.
Of course.
It's ineffective for people who just expect "God" to perform for them, instead of them solving and attempting an issue themselves.
Wishy washy nonesense? I assure you that there is people out there who think differently than you, and have their own ways of explaining everything.
Your right, human fabricated numbers and theories are way less imaginative than a God who doesn't exist as an entity and without supernatural powers.
People use the scientific method to figure out what?
It's insulting to understand human psychology?
Good thing I'm not religious.
But again, skeptics don't see religion as generally ridiculous, narrow minded people do. People who are curious about something generally tend to care to understand it more, rather than to excuse it as utter nonesense.
You can take the label of "skeptic" upon you, but that is just a facade. Atheism isn't "nuetral" skepticism, it's predenial.
In the same way that pink bunnies play basketball. You know, in the "not at all" way.
Well, except when it's a rational conclusion resulting from skepticism - like most of the time.
If you're just going to resort to special pleading, insults and nonsense claims then there is little point in continuing.
Do you need the definition of science?
The purpose of religion matches this perfectly.
Do you need the definition of science?
The purpose of religion matches this perfectly.
Oh yes you have
Supernatural claims just assume the are right.
Do you need the definition of science?
The purpose of religion is to "build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world"? I think not.