Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[JimL]

He has heard the gospel, so he won't be getting another chance. This finite point of mortal existance is the only chance he gets to choose an eternity with or without God.

Must be nice, sometimes I wish I were ignorant too.

[JimL]

Yes, it entails rejecting the assertion that the thing even exists. How is that not the most extreme possible rejection of the thing itself?

You can't reject something if you don't know that it exists. Stop being foolish OBP!

[Tassman]

Give me some scientific evidence that only science can answer such questions.

Only science has the methodology to provide empirically verifiable evidence re the universe and its origins, religion only has alleged divine revelation. The former has an impressive track record; the latter has been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions.

[Tassman]

He has heard the gospel, so he won't be getting another chance. This finite point of mortal existance is the only chance he gets to choose an eternity with or without God.

Prove it!

[Jedidiah]

Haven't been keeping up with scientific progress over the years I take it? We know the age of the universe now, as a result of scientific evidence, and its a lot older than 6000 years old.

Yes the universe appears to be on the order of 14 billion years old. That does not even approach an answer to my request for "some scientific evidence that only science can answer such questions." I take it you have no such evidence. Notice the word "only."

[Jedidiah]

Only science has the methodology to provide empirically verifiable evidence re the universe and its origins, religion only has alleged divine revelation. The former has an impressive track record; the latter has been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions.

Baseless claim not scientific evidence. I agree that the scientific method is the best for examining the universe, but . . .

[One Bad Pig]

You can't reject something if you don't know that it exists. Stop being foolish OBP!

I agree that you can't reject something if you don't know if it might exist (i.e., if no one has ever been told about an invisible pink unicorn, then one cannot be accused of rejecting said IPU). That is not what you've been claiming, Jim. You've been claiming that if someone rejects the existence of something, they can't be rejecting that something.

[JimL]

I agree that you can't reject something if you don't know if it might exist (i.e., if no one has ever been told about an invisible pink unicorn, then one cannot be accused of rejecting said IPU). That is not what you've been claiming, Jim. You've been claiming that if someone rejects the existence of something, they can't be rejecting that something.

Well perhaps you simply misunderstand. I'm rejecting your assertion, the theist's assertion, that a god exists. If ever I come across a god, then I can decide whether or not to reject him/her/it.

[One Bad Pig]

Well perhaps you simply misunderstand. I'm rejecting your assertion, the theist's assertion, that a god exists. If ever I come across a god, then I can decide whether or not to reject him/her/it.

That's what I understood you to be saying. The problem is that it's nonsense, as I've explained above. I don't know how else to get it across to you.

[JimL]

That's what I understood you to be saying. The problem is that it's nonsense, as I've explained above. I don't know how else to get it across to you.

Okay, don't bother then, apparently you are determined to be pig headed about this.

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, don't bother then, apparently you are determined to be pig headed about this.

That's clever, Jim, albeit highly ironic.

[Tassman]

Baseless claim not scientific evidence.

There is scientific evidence that shows without doubt YEC is completely wrong. Also that the Adam and Eve story cannot possibly be true, given that biology shows definitively that humans are descended from a non-human ancestor...to give but two examples.

I agree that the scientific method is the best for examining the universe, but . . .

But what?

[Tassman]

I agree that you can't reject something if you don't know if it might exist (i.e., if no one has ever been told about an invisible pink unicorn, then one cannot be accused of rejecting said IPU). That is not what you've been claiming, Jim. You've been claiming that if someone rejects the existence of something, they can't be rejecting that something.

Being aware that someone has come up with the notion of an invisible pink unicorn, does not necessarily entail actively rejecting the reality of IPU’s just as one does not actively reject other fanciful notions such as leprechauns or Zeus or Jesus the god/man. One merely evaluates these notions with a grain of salt.

[Jedidiah]

But what?

But you said:

Science is all that can answer questions re the origins of the universe. . . .

And I asked you to:

Give me some scientific evidence that only science can answer such questions.

So far all you have done is give me some science work done within the existing universe no evidence that ONLY science can can answer such questions. You have failed to meet my challenge.

[One Bad Pig]

Being aware that someone has come up with the notion of an invisible pink unicorn, does not necessarily entail actively rejecting the reality of IPU’s just as one does not actively reject other fanciful notions such as leprechauns or Zeus or Jesus the god/man. One merely evaluates these notions with a grain of salt.

Your blindingly obvious long-standing hostility to Jesus the god/man puts the lie to your assertion. "Grain of salt"? You're reading lately an awful lot like a closet Christian/conservative pretending to be otherwise in order to make the opposition look bad.