Which statement is more likely to be true:

[Eliot Wild]

Actually he probably didnt give you "these tools" now that I come to think of it. But perhaps you need to join a "The sun shines of out of my unholy arse because I'm a wanna be author" forum, because in places like this your gonna come up againts people who are get swept away with religion. Go figure!!

That's why I'm here. It is called the 'general religious debate' section. People are more than welcome to get swept away. I'm more than welcome to call 'bull****e' when they do. Go figure!!

 

[PennyKay]

That the bible is a divinely inspired/supernaturally God given book has not been refuted (it's stood the test of time better than any other man made theory), until it has been refuted beyond all cavil we can not deny the fact that God has told us what happened and how He created the universe. Science has yet to refute Holy write, on the contrary. The bible also states that we are without excuse, in other word it's inexcusable to plead ignornace or play dumb.

OK, give me your proof that your religion is a fact...???

(God did not tell you how he created the universe, a book written well over 1000 years ago did. How can you put your faith into this?)

 

[Jeremiah]

There's still an inherent assumption in the question, and responding to it implies an assent to that assumption. Do you know who gave you your unicorn?

And not only that, but as I tried to point out before, I don't think that "what created existence" is a logically coherent idea. In that case, the original question becomes something like "do you know (jumble jumble jumble)?" The only valid response to this is "I don't know", not "yes" or "no".

I am not really too worried about being "logically coherent" with this question. I am sure if you just used your imagination a little you can grasp the concept of a created existence. Billions of other humans do it, I am sure you can as well. Perhaps you are being to encompassing with the term "existence". Could you imagine something not of existence creating existence?

It does not exactly have to be a well developed notion to address the question. The question is meant to be aimed at what humans know, it is a question about human knowledge. Do humans possess knowledge of what created existence? If it is that existence is not created then clearly we do not possess that knowledge.

"'I don't know'"

Which would mean you have an absence of knowledge.

 

[tumbleweed41]

That the bible is a divinely inspired/supernaturally God given book has not been refuted (it's stood the test of time better than any other man made theory), until it has been refuted beyond all cavil we can not deny the fact that God has told us what happened and how He created the universe. Science has yet to refute Holy write, on the contrary. The bible also states that we are without excuse, in other word it's inexcusable to plead ignornace or play dumb.

I think you misunderstand how the scientific method works.
One can claim all they want that the Bible, or any other scripture, is divinely inspired/supernaturally God given. How can science even begin to refute the supernatural? Science deals with the natural world.
If you want to bring the supernatural into natural reality, it is up to the claimant to provide objective evidence that what they claim is true.
We already know that a literal interpretation of the Bible fails to stand up to real world scrutiny. Claims of a world wide flood and 6,000-10,000 year old Earth fall before geological and physical evidence. Claims of two created humans populating the entire world is less than 10,000 years fall before biological and mathematical evidence.

 

[Bereanz]

That's why I'm here. It is called the 'general religious debate' section. People are more than welcome to get swept away. I'm more than welcome to call 'bull****e' when they do. Go figure!!

General religious yes, not general bull****e!

 

[Eliot Wild]

General religious yes, not general bull****e!

Actually, I find those to be one-and-the-same, most of the time, like claiming that the divinely-inspired, supernatural bible has never been refuted. Really? Well, I have a divinely-inspired, supernatural Dr. Suess book about a cat in a hat, a fox in socks and green eggs and ham. And that's never been refuted either. So it goes.

 

[Bereanz]

I think you misunderstand how the scientific method works.
One can claim all they want that the Bible, or any other scripture, is divinely inspired/supernaturally God given. How can science even begin to refute the supernatural? Science deals with the natural world.
If you want to bring the supernatural into natural reality, it is up to the claimant to provide objective evidence that what they claim is true.
We already know that a literal interpretation of the Bible fails to stand up to real world scrutiny. Claims of a world wide flood and 6,000-10,000 year old Earth fall before geological and physical evidence. Claims of two created humans populating the entire world is less than 10,000 years fall before biological and mathematical evidence.

On the contrary, I understand how the "Scientific" method works exceedingly well thank you, and I have immense respect for the genuine toil and sacrifice scientists make for humanity. I also understand how the natural man thinks, the things of the supernatural are foolishness to him. We already know that, try as it might athiest/secular humanist "science" (at the tax payers expense) have resoundly failed to refute the bible on the basis of "the scientific method". Something I think you fail to realise is that not all "scientists, in fact not many at all, are athiests!!

PS: "We already know that a literal interpretation of the Bible fails to stand up to real world scrutiny. Claims of a world wide flood and 6,000-10,000 year old Earth fall before geological and physical evidence. Claims of two created humans populating the entire world is less than 10,000 years fall before biological and mathematical evidence." This is not true and you know it, and if you don't, then you are not a scientist.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not really too worried about being "logically coherent" with this question. I am sure if you just used your imagination a little you can grasp the concept of a created existence.

No, I really can't. I think "created existence" is as logically contradictory as a square circle or pacifist war. Creation implies a creator, which implies the existence of a creator... but if the creator exists, then "existence" can't be created, since it existed already.

And it's not like existence is a "thing" that can be created anyhow.

Billions of other humans do it, I am sure you can as well. Perhaps you are being to encompassing with the term "existence". Could you imagine something not of existence creating existence?

No I can't, because this statement implies that this "something" exists. When you describe it as "something not of existence", you don't resolve the problem; you set up a logical contradiction.

It does not exactly have to be a well developed notion to address the question.

Well-developed, no. Not inherently contradictory, yes.

The question is meant to be aimed at what humans knows, it is a question about human knowledge. Do humans possess knowledge of what created existence? If it is that existence is not created then clearly we do not possess that knowledge.

But we also do not lack the knowledge, since there would be no knowledge to be had. If existence is not created, then your statements in the OP effectively turn into the logical equivalents of "divide-by-zeros" - their truth value is undefined.

And they're especially undefined as long as they contain logically incoherent terms.

"'I don't know'"

Which would mean you have an absence of knowledge.

An absence of knowledge about the question itself, not necessarily an absence of knowledge about the subject of the question. The question needs to be defined better before that can be determined.

It's as if someone asked you "do you know (incomprehensible foreign statement)?" Your answer to this question has to wait until the incomprehensible part has been properly defined for you. You can't give a knee-jerk response of "no", because if the question turns out to be something like "do you know your own name?" then the correct answer was actually "yes" all along.

 

[Bereanz]

Actually, I find those to be one-and-the-same, most of the time, .

Where your concerned, I would intirely agree! Although I would say, "all of the time."

 

[tumbleweed41]

On the contrary, I understand how the "Scientific" method works exceedingly well thank you, and Ihave immense respect ofr the genuine toil and sacrifice that scientists make for humanity. I also understand how the natural man thinks, the things of the supernatural are foolishness to him. We already know that try as it might athiest/secular humanist "science" (at the tax payers expense) have resoundly failed to refute the bible on the basis of "the scientific method". Something I think you fail to realise is that not all "scientists, in fact not many at all, are athiests!!

I made no claim of "atheist" or "secular" science. Science is not religious or anti-religious.
The simple fact is that science does not deal with unprovable claims. They are dismissed for what they are. Supernatural, unfalsifiable, untestable, non-predictive claims that have no bearing on the observable natural world.
As I pointed out before, when Biblical claims, such as the world wide flood, or a relativity young earth, are taken as literal events, they are indeed thoroughly refuted through natural science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

PS: "We already know that a literal interpretation of the Bible fails to stand up to real world scrutiny. Claims of a world wide flood and 6,000-10,000 year old Earth fall before geological and physical evidence. Claims of two created humans populating the entire world is less than 10,000 years fall before biological and mathematical evidence." This is not true and you know it, and if you don't, then you are not a scientist.

Yes, it is true. And I challenge you to provide empirical evidence otherwise.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yes, it is true. And I challenge you to provide empirical evidence otherwise.

Yes, let's derail this thread before someone gets hurt.

 

[Bereanz]

OK, give me your proof that your religion is a fact...???

(God did not tell you how he created the universe, a book written well over 1000 years ago did. How can you put your faith into this?)

Your the physicist, Im sure you'll work it out in your own good time. Job is reputed to have been written 5000 years ago, so yes well over 1000 years, indeed. The New testament is 2000 years old and nothing in modern science has refuted it, you prove in to be innacurate, and i'll convert to athiesm in a New York Second.

“Science is governed by accepted laws and rules that require a strict, definite, exact, systematic study of rigidly particular, accurately verified observations of true and indisputable facts.

Precise application of facts gained through legitimate, correct, honest, researching, recording and experimentation leads to the legitimate or actual state of a matter that must be measured in strict adherence to fundamental principles and mathematical certainties in order to be definitively, distinctly and honourably quantified as something known to exist in reality by actual experience or observation before it can be something known to be the precise, correct and upright truth, truth impervious to any and all reasonable doubt.”

At the very heart and soul of the word “Science” is TRUTH.

In essence science is the secular human beings finest and utmost highest, honourable and valiant effort to verify record, define and explain the truth of his reality and the world in which he finds himself in scientifically.


I wonder if the learned Sceintist are aware that in the Library of the Louvre in Paris there are three and half miles of obsolete science books, repeat three and half miles. Since 4000 BC the clear message in bible hasn’t changed a bit. (Page 819 WGTTB)

In 1861 the FrenchAcademy of Science published a brochure of fifty-one “scientific facts” which supposedly contradicted the bible. These where used by the atheists of that day in ridiculing Christians. Sound familiar? Today, all fifty –one of those “facts” are unacceptable to modern scientists. In other words they have been proven to be false/wrong/lies.

For some unknown and unacceptable reason, atheist so called science and scientists have been afforded the luxury of getting away with quoting lies as fact for centuries and mores the pity the un-evolved human conscious believes these funny little men in white coats. Why? Is it because they hold a clip board, a test tube and a Bunsen burner, have unlimited access to taxpayers funds to search for and not find things that we intelligent people know don’t exist and use meaningless terms like hypothesis and theories and then teach these “theories” lies to our children wrapped up and presented to them as FACT?. Yes!

So for the record, let’s get this fact clear from the outset; a theory or hypothesis is no more a fact than a conspiracy is a theory.

 

[Eliot Wild]

Where your concerned, I would intirely agree! Although I would say, "all of the time."

That's one thing I can pretty much count on when dealing with the uber-religious, bull****e and personal attacks. Thanks for playing.

 

[Bereanz]

Yes, it is true. And I challenge you to provide empirical evidence otherwise.

No it isn't. Nur nur ne nur nur!! You need to provide imperical evidence first, your the one saying the bible isnt accurate, where is your evidence that proves "science" has proved any biblical account to be innaccurate! Come on stump up

 

[Bereanz]

That's one thing I can pretty much count on when dealing with the uber-religious, bull****e and personal attacks. Thanks for playing.

Lol, have a whinge mate.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So for the record, let’s get this fact clear from the outset; a theory or hypothesis is no more a fact than a conspiracy is a theory.

This statement alone provides evidence that you have no understanding of the actual definition of what are Scientific Facts, Theories, Hypothesis, and Laws.
Many before you have confused the colloquial use of the word theory with actual Scientific Theories. Here's to hoping you will not continue to make this mistake.

 

[tumbleweed41]

No it isn't. Nur nur ne nur nur!! You need to provide imperical evidence first, your the one saying the bible isnt accuaret, where is your evidence that proves "science" as proved it to be innaccurate!

 

[Bereanz]

This statement alone provides evidence that you have no understanding of the actual definition of what are Scientific Facts, Theories, Hypothesis, and Laws.
Many before you have confused the colloquial use of the word theory with actual Scientific Theories. Here's to hoping you will not continue to make this mistake.

What a cop out, dissapointing to say the least. Oh well, I've seen you off. Next!

 

[Meow Mix]

I haven't read a majority of the thread, but wanted to point out that both questions assume existence was created without supporting that hidden assumption; therefore I can't answer either.