- Joined
- Jul 17, 2022
- Messages
- 26,772
- Reaction score
- 20,424
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Whether or not Gods did something is a scientific question.
Whether or not gods are true is a scientific question.
Whether or not Gods did something is a scientific question.God did it is not a scientific question. Science is what can be observed and measure: evolution/Big Bang and creation can not be measure or observed; happened before you were born.
Whether or not Gods did something is a scientific question.
Whether or not gods are true is a scientific question.
Where did the pure oneness come from?
Whether or not Gods did something is a scientific question.
Whether or not gods are true is a scientific question.
You prefer an 'almost infinitely complex universe' created itself?
Always? Even the beginning had to have a beginning.From what has always existed.
I am dealing in the real world. It's things like gods and such which are the fantasies. You've offered nothing of substance to demonstrate otherwise. The Big Bang & evolution are solid scientific theories with supporting evidence and nothing to discredit them. So until you can provide something solid to support any supernatural assertion, you have nothing at all and are just making an assumption and argument from ignorance fallacy.
nope, the 'entity' is very real.
hmmm.
this is kinda how he did it, details at the heavenly home.
View attachment 67467379
Always? Even the beginning had to have a beginning.
I think that is the perfect cartoon. It shows the “Creation” and the Adam and Eve story to basically be children’s fairy tales, although many adults also believe them. The first cartoon panel above is also important because it shows that the adults who believe in the fairy talesstart telling them over and over to very young children hoping that they will also grow up to believe them. Many do. Some reject such myths. They are called atheists.
My apologies if I misrepresented your quote.I prefer that you allow me to give my own answers rather than strawman me.
I say he isn't.God is above science;
Even if you argue eternity, at some point there had to be something. The only question, is what made that something?Lol
Exactly the flawed thinking I spoke to.
There could not have been a beginning, there cannot be an end.
Look at anything in the universe. From our little world and everything on it to black holes and universes.
Yes, universes, called multiverse.
Peace
God doesn't exist.God is above science
Even if you argue eternity, at some point there had to be something. The only question, is what made that something?
What is there to come around to? Seriously? That there has ALWAYS been something and always will be? Oh hell, I can go along with that theory. There has always been something, but what hasn't been explained - WHAT WAS that something and how did that something come into being????Hey, listen, you are just not getting it.
Over the next several weeks think about what I have told you. Really think it though daily.
You'll come around if you do the mental work to process it.
Peace ✌
What is there to come around to? Seriously? That there has ALWAYS been something and always will be? Oh hell, I can go along with that theory. There has always been something, but what hasn't been explained - WHAT WAS that something and how did that something come into being????
God the repairman. OK, this is beyond nonsensical. This is your argument FOR God? And you're saying the Big Bang Theory is just about throwing things around? What is this, troll time at the church?like my Truck repair illustration, throwing parts at a Truck does not make or repair a Truck.
You NEEEEEED a intelligent Repairman or Manufacturing agent to do that
same with Big Bang....
How does that work exactly? So your God has a mouth and vocal cords? And "speaking" implies sound, which is waves in the air. So there's air where this God is? And how exactly do those sound waves produce some tangible thing, you know, like the Earth and the Sun? Or does God speak into a computer, which then generates or carries out the order? Like, "Alexa, generate me a Universe, please."he speaks and it is done
This would have to be true, or Mach's Principle would prevent the bang.I believe there was only originally pure energy within the singularity and no separation of particles within itself.
Is there a point, or are you going to continue to deflect?evidence at times is kind of sneaky.
on another forum they are worried about nucle@r warfare from Submarines. sure enuf we helped the russians make quieter subs here in the West.
i just learned of this today.
but it got me thinking: did it matter? so they made Super Quiet subs we couldn't detect and could destroy us easily with these things if someone over there wanted to.
but for the Christian we know the above IS not true. God protected us, didn't matter if they had 10 million nuclear subs out there; all those subs do nothing unless the Almighty allows them to 'push the button'.
so it is in your Life today, you are facing a variety of things, maybe some hair raising stuff, i don't know.
what i do know is the same Great God that stops the nukes from flying is waiting to hear from you. creating a Universe is no sweat, one day's work of speaking to it and off it goes. your Big Bang thoughts are too small.
be blessed.
oh yeah, the CNC nuke story i was referring too...
According to the web search results, Toshiba supplying Soviets with the precision CNC machines during the Cold War did help quiet their subs. The machines were used to make propellers that reduced the noise of the Soviet submarines and made them harder to detect by the US sonar technology This was considered a major setback for the West and a violation of the CoCom agreement that restricted the export of sensitive technology to the Eastern Bloc13 The incident caused diplomatic tensions between the US and Japan and Norway, and resulted in sanctions and prosecutions of the companies and individuals involved. You.com
Immaterial. It's about the quality of evidence provided. If one makes an affirmative claim, they bear the burden of proving it. Or at the very least, provide objective evidence. Testimonial evidence is very poor quality and notoriously unreliable and is always surpassed by objective evidence. So if you're going to claim something along the lines of God did whatever, then the onus of proof is on you and mere claims, experience, or belief isn't good enough.we have to shift gears here.
there are two kinds of proof in play here...
legal evidence and scientific proof; apples and oranges.
Legal Evidence
Legal evidence refers to any information, materials, or facts that are presented in a court of law to support or prove a claim, allegation, or defense. It is the information that is used to establish the truth or validity of a particular fact or issue in a legal proceeding. Legal evidence can take various forms, such as documents, testimonies, physical objects, photographs, videos, or expert opinions.
In a legal context, evidence is subject to specific rules and requirements to ensure its reliability and admissibility. These rules vary depending on the jurisdiction and legal system in which the case is being tried. The admissibility of evidence is determined by the judge, who considers factors such as relevance, authenticity, credibility, and whether the evidence was obtained lawfully.
Scientific Proof
Scientific proof, on the other hand, is a term commonly used in scientific research and the practice of science. It refers to the process of establishing or confirming the validity of a scientific hypothesis or theory through rigorous, systematic experimentation, observation, and analysis. In science, proof is based on empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and the repeatability of experiments.
Scientific proof involves the accumulation of evidence from multiple studies or experiments that consistently support a hypothesis or theory. This evidence is typically obtained through controlled experiments, statistical analysis, peer-reviewed research, and the replication of results by independent researchers.
Unlike legal evidence, scientific proof is not typically presented in a court of law. Instead, it is published in scientific journals and subject to peer review and scrutiny by the scientific community. Scientific proof is provisional in nature, as new evidence or findings can potentially challenge or refine existing theories.
You.com
Differences between Legal Evidence and Scientific Proof
The main differences between legal evidence and scientific proof can be summarized as follows:
- Purpose: Legal evidence is used to establish the truth or validity of a claim or defense in a legal proceeding, while scientific proof is used to confirm or support a scientific hypothesis or theory.
- Context: Legal evidence is presented in a court of law, whereas scientific proof is typically published in scientific journals and subject to peer review.
- Requirements: Legal evidence is subject to specific rules and requirements determined by the legal system, such as relevance, admissibility, and authenticity. Scientific proof is based on empirical evidence, rigorous experimentation, and logical reasoning.
- Presentation: Legal evidence is presented by lawyers, witnesses, or experts in a court of law, while scientific proof is presented by scientists in the form of research papers, conference presentations, or scientific discussions.
It's important to note that legal evidence and scientific proof are distinct concepts that serve different purposes in their respective domains. While legal evidence is concerned with establishing facts in a legal context, scientific proof is focused on confirming or supporting scientific knowledge and understanding.
But since you know nothing about evolution, you both misunderstand and misrepresent what Gould is saying.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?