Sheldon
Veteran Member
That's not a fact, I suggest you Google fact and look at the definition.From the fact that the universe has a cause
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!
That's not a fact, I suggest you Google fact and look at the definition.From the fact that the universe has a cause
You're describing theology as dangerous,
and I'm replying it is tied to nationality, that you are missing the origin of said danger.
I'm not criticizing you or your character or your existence, nor spreading rumors about you, nor slandering you.
I'm not building a case against your character nor making "Sweeping claims" about you.
I think the real issue is not whether science can prove God but rather it cannot explain the reason for our existence.
I always ask What started the big bang and why...where did the energy and matter come from?
The explanation I'm hearing these days is that nothing, became something for such a tiny amount of time, it basically remained nothing and that doesn't breach the law that energy and matter cannot be created! I have to ask, why do people who believe such a statement think Christians are naive and stupid?
The truth I think is that most people never even bother to question that fundamental issue about the big bang...it does not even enter their heads!
Even Stephen Hawkings answer to that question is surprising.the real answer from science is "we don't know yet"!
I think religion follows the path of whatever is legal in a country and reflects the character of the country. Here is one possibility: that if homophobia thrives in our country it is because of the country and the people in the country, and they, in turn, make homophobia religious. 1950's America all upset about wars and newly aware of the value of its children, many of whom will grow up without fathers, it obsesses over them. It becomes idealistic and portrays an exact way of life, a pattern of living which each child should expect. It projects Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith as the way to live. That's how we get the 1950's. The children rebel. They don't want to be told who to be. That's how we get the 1960's. None of this comes from religion, but it shapes religion. Then religion claims "I did that."Do you agree that religious doctrine often contains some pernicious ideas? Like homophobia as one example...
That requires tangibility. There is none.The Intelligent Design, look the video in Scientific Christianity strikes again
was aimed not to prove God, but to introduce Hypothesis of God's existence into Scientific Community.
Why? Before the developing scientific proof of God, one must ask the question: "Is there God?"
And this question must sound in a peer-review scientific journal.
But, sadly, the Christianity is not yet legalized. Unlike bisexual activity.
Science did you human invent earths the planet body presence as a human..as a thinker...as a machine builder from the planets products?That requires tangibility. There is none.
Science dosent deal with conceptual matters.
Refer to philosophy in such cases.
I'd recommend a book of laws as well.That requires tangibility. There is none.
Science dosent deal with conceptual matters.
Refer to philosophy in such cases.
You mean the human science on planet earth the law is written in stone. Being stone.I'd recommend a book of laws as well.
No, I mean a book of laws so he can see nowhere is specified that Christianity is illegal for him to practice.You mean the human science on planet earth the law is written in stone. Being stone.
Straw man fallacies you falsely assign to others, do not carry a burden of proof, unless you'd care to quote me making any such claim?
.
Species evolution through natural selection is an accepted scientific fact, and based on the evidence of an accepted scientific theory in good standing. I don't need to evidence your straw man claims about it.
"Fossils, anatomy, embryos, and DNA sequences provide corroborative lines of evidence about common ancestry, with more closely related organisms having more characteristics in common. DNA underlies the similarities and differences in fossils, anatomy, and embryos."
If you really wanted to learn about evolution you could find the facts as easily as anyone else, but you just want to deny those facts, in favour of creationism
How can I ever know, if you haven’t define “evidence”No of course not, how does the one evidence the other?
Ok, Ok, quote a specific comment where I made a logical fallacy and then explain why is that a fallacy………………quote the actual claim.I , it is pure assumption, usually based on the use of begging the question fallacies, so far from being a logical deduction it is irrational.
.
Again, what is the point of quoting my comments if you are going to say something irrelevant?As opposed to the assumption a deity is eternal? Except wait a minute, we know a universe is possible, we don't know any deity is possible. Now I'm no philosopher it is true, but how is an assumption about something we know exists, existing in a different state, and changing by an as yet unknown natural phenomena, which we also know are possible, less likely than unevidenced assumptions about something no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for, using inexplicable magic? I think you just made Occam cry...
You're playing the man, and not the ball, again. One can only infer you have no answer to the objections I raised to your first cause argument, and it's flawed assumptions about causation.
1.How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause
2. How did you test anything outside of time and space?
3. Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?
How many things outside of time and space did you test, before you determined that anything outside of the temporal universe needed a cause?
None, I simply tested the causal principle with as many samples possible………. Is that good enough for you? If not why not? Why are you making an arbitrary exception when the causal principles gets to a point where it has theological implications that you don’t like?How did you test anything outside of time and space?
Since time itself is dependant on the physical universe, how could it have a "beginning"?
An
What's the cause of the popping into existence of virtual particles?
id it? How did you determine that it didn't just change form with the big bang?
Bzzzt.
Causality is a phenomenon that applies within the space time continuum.
How do you falsify the claim that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor? I don’t deny that this proposition is true, all I am saying is that the lack of falsifiability is not a big of a deal, many valid theories/hypothesis/models etc. are unfasifiable but they are still valid scientific toolsThat's preposterously false.
Common ancestry is extremely falsifiable.
Just like it is falsifiable and verifiable to say that you and me share parents.
All you need to do is compare our DNA.
And what does the tree of life have to do with DNA tests use in court to prove father son relations?Dude.......................................
Tree of life SVG - Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia
That tree is the result of an automated process that graphs out matches of DNA from fully sequenced genomes from a great many species.
.
Science by human thinking.An imbalance of energy in the “quantum sea”
D
What the evidence shows is that even if there was something before the big bang , this “something” could have not been eternal. I am not claiming certainty; I am just claiming that given the evidence we have to date, the universe likely had a begging.
How do you know that?
How do you falsify the claim that humans and bacteria have a common ancestor? I don’t deny that this proposition is true, all I am saying is that the lack of falsifiability is not a big of a deal, many valid theories/hypothesis/models etc. are unfasifiable but they are still valid scientific tools