Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
New solar system near by with 7 planets, three habitable.
Collapse
X
-
?!?!
Any god who could be threatened and superseded by modern physics would not be worth serving.
But this does not describe the God of the Bible, who created the universe and its laws, including the laws of modern physics.
Comment
-
God isn't a concept. The truth matters. You don't just decide what is true. Truth is reality. You can believe in it or not, but it is still true. If you want to believe physics replaces God, then go right ahead. God is still true and real. God made physics. You are nothing but an idolator, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostGod isn't a concept. The truth matters. You don't just decide what is true. Truth is reality. You can believe in it or not, but it is still true. If you want to believe physics replaces God, then go right ahead. God is still true and real. God made physics. You are nothing but an idolator, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe difference is that science is supported by verifiable evidence wheres God is not.
Jim
* The reality of God can be tested individually. God interacts with us one on one. The tests are not repeatable, and thus can't be shown scientifically not to be simple coincidence. As such the can't be called ogjective, But the sum of them leads to faith in those with faith to believe.Last edited by oxmixmudd; 03-02-2017, 07:07 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostGod isn't a concept. The truth matters. You don't just decide what is true. Truth is reality. You can believe in it or not, but it is still true.
This is indicative of entities that do not exist, such as ghosts/fairies/leprechauns, and is completely different from the nature of evidence available for entities that do exist, such as London/hedgehogs/DJTrump.Last edited by Roy; 03-02-2017, 07:27 AM.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAll too often the supposed evidence for god is said to be available only to those already willing to believe, and the arguments accompanying it are equally (in)valid for the existence of Winnie-the-Pooh.
This is indicative of entities that do not exist, such as ghosts/fairies/leprechauns, and is completely different from the nature of evidence available for entities that do exist, such as London/hedgehogs/DJTrump.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe difference is that science is supported by verifiable evidence wheres God is not.
And "verifiable" is different for historical facts than scientific one. Can you verify scientifically that Caesar was the Roman Emperor? Or that he was murdered? Can you verify scientifically that George Washington was the president of the USA?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAll too often the supposed evidence for god is said to be available only to those already willing to believe, and the arguments accompanying it are equally (in)valid for the existence of Winnie-the-Pooh.
This is indicative of entities that do not exist, such as ghosts/fairies/leprechauns, and is completely different from the nature of evidence available for entities that do exist, such as London/hedgehogs/DJTrump.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostEvidence that keeps changing and changing the conclusions. In 1912, Wegener was a kook who went around claiming that the continents were moving. 50 years later he was a genius for the same evidence. In 1912 it was not true, in 1960 it was.
And "verifiable" is different for historical facts than scientific one. Can you verify scientifically that Caesar was the Roman Emperor? Or that he was murdered? Can you verify scientifically that George Washington was the president of the USA?Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-02-2017, 03:19 PM.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=shunyadragon;421533]Originally posted by Sparko View PostEvidence that keeps changing and changing the conclusions. In 1912, Wegener was a kook who went around claiming that the continents were moving. 50 years later he was a genius for the same evidence. In 1912 it was not true, in 1960 it was.
Another wrong headed example. Historical academics is based on objectively verifiable scientific, archeological and documentary evidence. Of course, it is not scientifically "verifiable,' because it is historically verifiable by academic historical methods, which like science may change when new evidence becomes known.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=Sparko;421535]Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
And Christianity is based on history. We have verifiable archeological and documentary evidence. A heck of a lot more for Jesus than for Alexander the Great, for example.
Christianity is indeed based on history, but on historical records fifty or more years after the death of Jesus.
Neither the miraculous claims attributed to Caesar, Alexander the Great, nor Jesus Christ, such as virgin birth, are accepted as historically factual by secular academic historians.
This is decidedy off topic, and not related to the science of cosmology.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-02-2017, 04:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
Your bias is showing, yes, Jesus Christ is considered a historical person by far most historians, but I disagree that we know more about him than Alexander the Great, whom we have coins, statues from his life time, accounts of battles by friend and foe alike. During the life of Jesus, we have no records nor outside witnesses.
Christianity is indeed based on history, but on historical records fifty or more years after the death of Jesus.
Neither the miraculous claims attributed to Caesar, Alexander the Great, nor Jesus Christ, such as virgin birth, are accepted as historically factual by secular academic historians.
This is decidedy off topic, and not related to the science of cosmology.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 05-28-2024, 01:19 PM
|
18 responses
100 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-30-2024, 05:13 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
9 responses
91 views
2 likes
|
Last Post 05-27-2024, 05:48 AM |
Comment