Majority of Republicans believe in literal creationism

[Lowaicue]

are you saying science isn't interested in causes?.....what do you do when you run up against causes which cannot be explained by science?.......after all, gravity doesn't NEED to exist, does it?......

Gravity of itself clearly cannot have a need, BUT to use the sentence in the way you want it meant, yes - gravity DOES need to exist, or to put it another way it is necessary for gravity to exist in order for you to exist to discount it.

Did you not do science when you were at school?

 

[Lowaicue]

I have equated the two in regards to what we have proof of and what we don't know or understand. You can't tell me why black holes exist any more than I can tell you why God exists. You have no more basis in science to explain black holes than I have to explain God. You can observe the evidence of black holes, just as I can observe the evidence of God. Neither of us can prove or disprove either one, or explain them with physics and science. We can speculate, we can educate guesses, but we can't know anything for absolute certain.

Let's get this straight, what you, Mott, Low, and other Atheists are trying to do, is apply an impossible standard that you can't meet yourself, on things that science doesn't have an explanation for. You see, from your personal perspective, you don't believe in God, therefore, you have established the criteria around your belief, and closed off any consideration of anything outside that belief. It's really no different than a religious person claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old, in spite of your evidence to the contrary... they simply dismiss your evidence, and build their criteria around what they believe to be true. This isn't how science functions. Science doesn't care that you are an Atheist who refuses to believe in God, and it doesn't stop functioning because you have drawn a conclusion without basis.

Science continually builds evidence so that as time progresses more and more can be known about ourselves and our surroundings. The worship of gods does not progress toward the future. Instead it clings to the ignorance of the past. All deific philosophies rely on man's arrogant belief that he should have a solution to everything. A scientific stance accepts, and why on earth not, that the knowledge we have now, whilst being unimaginably more than it was in our parents' day is still incomplete and asks nothing more than a continuation of study and exploration.
The science book is open. The religious book has long been closed.
BTW I prefer to think of myself as a secularist since I consider that atheism can be, in the wrong unclasped hands, a substitute for religion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Science continually builds evidence so that as time progresses more and more can be known about ourselves and our surroundings. The worship of gods does not progress toward the future. Instead it clings to the ignorance of the past. All deific philosophies rely on man's arrogant belief that he should have a solution to everything. A scientific stance accepts, and why on earth not, that the knowledge we have now, whilst being unimaginably more than it was in our parents' day is still incomplete and asks nothing more than a continuation of study and exploration.
The science book is open. The religious book has long been closed.
BTW I prefer to think of myself as a secularist since I consider that atheism can be, in the wrong unclasped hands, a substitute for religion.

As you correctly state, science accepts that knowledge is incomplete. Instead of 'concluding' things, science continues to explore them, questions continue to be asked. How can you ask questions of something when you have made a definitive conclusion on what you believe?

I don't need to know about your personal prejudices regarding religious beliefs, I am not a big believer in any religious dogma, I am a spiritualist. I do believe in the spiritual realm, not because I have "faith" in it, but because I have experienced connection with it, and know it exists. Is that where "God" resides? I have no idea for certain, but I believe that is a possibility.

You see, my dimwitted friend, what this whole debate boils down to is, you and your godless buddies want to use science to 'prove' God doesn't and can't exist, but science will not allow you to do that. You're constantly finding yourself lacking because you realize that science can't ever 'prove' God doesn't exist, but you need for it to, so you continue to pose false reasoning, and pretend that since physical science can't support something outside the physical realm, it means it's not valid. I, on the other hand, have advocated nothing more than "possibility." The simple and scientifically based reasoning of logic, which says that anything is possible, there is much we don't know and understand, and nothing can be said to be impossible. Can you rationalize how we are at two different places here? You are trying to use physical science as a means to disprove something not of the physical realm, that you happen to not believe in... I am saying science is inadequate to do that, and science itself, is the continued examination of possibility.

Once you established in your mind, that a "God" is not possible, you stopped being scientific and began practicing a faith. Your faith just happens to disbelieve in God, rather than believe in it.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Gravity of itself clearly cannot have a need, BUT to use the sentence in the way you want it meant, yes - gravity DOES need to exist, or to put it another way it is necessary for gravity to exist in order for you to exist to discount it.

Did you not do science when you were at school?

yes, and philosophy......you correctly comprehend that within our universe we NEED gravity to exist.....what you fail to account for is why the gravity is here so we CAN exist.....gravity can cause what happens when two bodies of matter are in proximity to each other, but what IS gravity in the absence of matter.....obviously gravity existed at the moment of the big bang, because everything that happened after the Big Bang depends on gravity doing what gravity does.....but, WHY did gravity exist in this universe....if gravity had been something other than gravity, then our universe would have been something other than our universe.......why does our universe exist?.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

BTW I prefer to think of myself as a secularist since I consider that atheism can be, in the wrong unclasped hands, a substitute for religion.

obviously secularism can as well.....your best bet is agnosticism...there you can simply throw up your hands and admit "I can't decide what to believe in"......

 

[Based Chad]

yes, and philosophy......you correctly comprehend that within our universe we NEED gravity to exist.....what you fail to account for is why the gravity is here so we CAN exist.....gravity can cause what happens when two bodies of matter are in proximity to each other, but what IS gravity in the absence of matter.....obviously gravity existed at the moment of the big bang, because everything that happened after the Big Bang depends on gravity doing what gravity does.....but, WHY did gravity exist in this universe....if gravity had been something other than gravity, then our universe would have been something other than our universe.......why does our universe exist?.....

it might have just been a rose that didn't smell sweet that we called Ed.

 

[Based Chad]

I have equated the two in regards to what we have proof of and what we don't know or understand. You can't tell me why black holes exist any more than I can tell you why God exists. You have no more basis in science to explain black holes than I have to explain God. You can observe the evidence of black holes, just as I can observe the evidence of God. Neither of us can prove or disprove either one, or explain them with physics and science. We can speculate, we can educate guesses, but we can't know anything for absolute certain.

Let's get this straight, what you, Mott, Low, and other Atheists are trying to do, is apply an impossible standard that you can't meet yourself, on things that science doesn't have an explanation for. You see, from your personal perspective, you don't believe in God, therefore, you have established the criteria around your belief, and closed off any consideration of anything outside that belief. It's really no different than a religious person claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old, in spite of your evidence to the contrary... they simply dismiss your evidence, and build their criteria around what they believe to be true. This isn't how science functions. Science doesn't care that you are an Atheist who refuses to believe in God, and it doesn't stop functioning because you have drawn a conclusion without basis.

Black hole = matter so dense that it's gravity is strong enough to pull light and warp the space time continuum, making a convenient thoroughfare for adventuresome gene rodenberry characters.

 

[Based Chad]

Dixie. Science is not assuming god exists based on nothing and then putting the burden on atheists to disprove him.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

it might have just been a rose that didn't smell sweet that we called Ed.

and no one interferes with your right to believe that true.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Dixie. Science is not assuming god exists based on nothing and then putting the burden on atheists to disprove him.

atheists assume their own burdens by asserting he does not exist and claiming it's a rational conclusion....if so, they need to demonstrate their rationale.....

agnostics avoid that burden by stating they don't know who to believe.....

I avoid that burden by acknowledging it's a faith choice, not a rational conclusion.....

 

[Based Chad]

atheists assume their own burdens by asserting he does not exist and claiming it's a rational conclusion....if so, they need to demonstrate their rationale.....

agnostics avoid that burden by stating they don't know who to believe.....

I avoid that burden by acknowledging it's a faith choice, not a rational conclusion.....

I'm sorry. You're wrong. The ones claiming the existence of magic entities has the burden of proving them, in science that is.

Science is atheistic.

and calling it a faith choice is not longer tenable for these theocratic zealots. It is their agenda to pervert science into a theocratic tool, for social control.

 

[Damocles]

What are you blabbering about?

Anyhoo.

new world order spiritualists like dixie always say god is something weird, like energy, or the laws of physics, or everything... but we dont need god to explain those, we have the words "energy", "the laws of physics", and "everything" to deal with those concepts. Now we have god is a scientist. Thanks for the new loony tune.

I actually don't give a turd if anybody believes. It matters nothing at all to me. But it is absurd to try to use the appendix as your reasoning to disbelieve.

Mostly because it is a useful organ and keeps you healthy, not the useless organ that useless and uneducated assumptions made it into.

It doesn't matter if "the Deity and/or deities" are just absent. I don't care what you want to believe, none of it effects me.

 

[Based Chad]

I actually don't give a turd if anybody believes. It matters nothing at all to me. But it is absurd to try to use the appendix as your reasoning to disbelieve.

Mostly because it is a useful organ and keeps you healthy, not the useless organ that useless assumptions made it into.

Yet you only pipe up when someone is successfully destroying the god delusion...

 

[Damocles]

I'm sorry. You're wrong. The ones claiming the existence of magic entities has the burden of proving them, in science that is.

Science is atheistic.

and calling it a faith choice is not longer tenable for these theocratic zealots. It is their agenda to pervert science into a theocratic tool, for social control.

It's junk logic to assume that anything supernatural could be measured and proven by the scientific method we use to discover nature. You, sir, are a fool. The very definition of the term supernatural puts it outside those methods.

 

[Based Chad]

It's junk "logic" to assume that anything "supernatural" could be measured and "proven" by the scientific method we use to discover nature.

Making it junk science to say there's scientific proof of god, since science relies on measurement and proof.. Thanks damo.

 

[Damocles]

Making it junk science to say there's scientific proof of god, since science relies on measurement and proof.. Thanks damo.

Not "junk science" but "junk logic", the terms are not synonymous. The reality is that something that is supernatural would not be described by the scientific method, it is why it is called supernatural.

 

[Cancel8]

Not "junk science" but "junk logic", the terms are not synonymous. The reality is that something that is supernatural would not be described by the scientific method, it is why it is called supernatural.

I learned an awesome debating trick recently. To conclusively prove any point beyond a shadow of a doubt, one need merely post "Shmee, shmo, shmu" or some alliterative variant thereof.

Thus your case is made...

 

[Based Chad]

Not "junk science" but "junk logic", the terms are not synonymous. The reality is that something that is supernatural would not be described by the scientific method, it is why it is called supernatural.

So supernatural things cannot be proven by science, making it fraudulent to say science has done so.

It's still junk science, whether the "terms are synonymous" are not.

 

[Damocles]

I learned an awesome debating trick recently. To conclusively prove any point beyond a shadow of a doubt, one need merely post "Shmee, shmo, shmu" or some alliterative variant thereof.

Thus your case is made...

I read somewhere that unless you can define green in an understandable way to people who are blind and have never had sight it means you don't exist. Get cracking. It is babble to tell people to define something using a method that is directly contradictory to its actual meaning.

 

[Cancel8]

I read somewhere that unless you can define green in an understandable way to people who are blind and have never had sight it means you don't exist. Get cracking.

I will demonstrate. Shmi shmead shum shmine shmeen shmist.

How did I do, "AssHat"?