firedragon
Veteran Member
One needs a truck to hit me, in order to hurt my feelings.
Good going. Cheers.
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!
One needs a truck to hit me, in order to hurt my feelings.
It is only because I am a Christian. Moreover: Orthodox one. Moreover: the fundamentalist.
How one can ignore God if there would be no God? If there is God, then God is surely proven.
Acknowledgment of Non-linearity or How to Solve Several Conjectures, Acknowledgment of Non-linearity or How to Solve Several Conjectures, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0199
Exceptions from Robin's Inequality, Exceptions from Robin's Inequality, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2011.0198
Proof of the ABC Conjecture, Proof of the ABC Conjecture, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2012.0086
Toward Advances in Medicine and Interstellar Travel Toward Advances in Medicine and Interstellar Travel, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2101.0111
Simulation Hypothesis and Dark Matter Simulation Hypothesis and Dark Matter, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2103.0133
I repeat:
1. Science does not deal with God, this is the definition of the word Science: Scientists follow closely the methods of Science, the main and most old of which is Methodological Naturalism.
2. If God exists, then He influences nature, at least at the moment of its creation.
3. Science deals with absolutely all nature: Science is interested in all natural things in our Universe.
Items 1,2,3 give the conclusion that "there is no God" according to Science. This means that Science is not right (Science has sinned) before God. Because God knows that God exists.
Let me repeat for clarity:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, influences the physical world (e.g. walks on water),
3. Science is interested in the physical world.
Conclusion: Science tells, that God does not exist.
I repeat:
1. Evolution is Science.
2. Science is not interested in God.
3. Thus, theistic evolution is not science.
4. God, if exists, acts on the physical world (at least at the moment of creating the world),
5. Thus, God does not exist, according to Science.
6. But I am sure, God exists.
Actually, it has been, such as studies on whether praying for someone actually works.
Hereby Science is not interested in saying "God did it." Science looks for a more detailed explanation.
So, other than the conclusion "there was no God" is not scientific.
I repeat:
1. Science does not deal with God, this is the definition of the word Science: Scientists follow closely the methods of Science, the main and most old of which is Methodological Naturalism.
2. If God exists, then He influences nature, at least at the moment of its creation.
3. Science deals with absolutely all nature: Science is interested in all natural things in our Universe.
Items 1,2,3 give the conclusion that "there is no God" according to Science.
What can you say about my logical conclusion:False. Science doe not deal with whether God exists or not. It is neutral to the question of the existence of God.
What can you say about my logical conclusion:Repeating nonsense will not make it make any more sense.
Down the rabbit hole againSo your first point doesnt have any evidence but just random. Nice.
So the second point is that evolution proved all of that wrong. How?
What can you say about my logical conclusion:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, acts on nature.
3. Science is interested in nature.
Thus, Science tells, that there is no God.
Down the rabbit hole again
You asking for evidence when you provide none yourself.
But, I'll play your game for now ...
Come back and ask me questions when you've watched those two videos.
You are a scream.I didnt make any claim so for what should I provide any evidence for?
And no. These videos dont prove anything. Maybe you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims so you just cut and paste URL's for ease.
Thanks for showing that.
You are a scream.
What would you accept of evidence that I am able to provide on a forum?
So the second point is that evolution proved all of that wrong. How?
It is only because I am a Christian. Moreover: Orthodox one. Moreover: the fundamentalist.
What can you say about my logical conclusion:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, acts on nature.
3. Science is interested in nature.
Thus, Science tells, that there is no God.
Thus, Science tells, that there is no God
Once again a non-answer.Evidence that proves your claim.
"Creationism is a 4000-year old idea that has been shown to be incorrect."
You said you have no evidence for "Creationism is a 4000-year old" claim.
And you claimed "Evolution" is the answer for your claim "Creationism is a 4000-year old idea that has been shown to be incorrect" which you have not given any evidence to.
So I think you understand the standard.
The one who can't articulate the chain of logical reasons that lead him to conclude that he is right, nor refute the chain of logical reasons presented that show him to be wrong -- but believes it 100% anyway.Who decides which has abandoned the use of reason, the one that believes he's right?
WRONGWhat can you say about my logical conclusion:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, acts on nature.
3. Science is interested in nature.
Thus, Science tells, that there is no God.
I can say this: it is not a logical conclusion.What can you say about my logical conclusion:
1. Science is not interested in God.
2. God, if exists, acts on nature.
3. Science is interested in nature.
Thus, Science tells, that there is no God.
Science is interested in god
Instead, science is not interested in baseless claims. Yes, that includes gods. But gods aren't singled out