Faith

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,297
As opposed to claims of inerrant accuracy without evidence? Meh...give me a changing landscape and a willingness to learn.
You don’t have a willingness to learn though..you reject the Biblical claim of intelligent design, the creator God to explain how it all began and instead to try to fill that void with something else.


The difference between what scientists make up and what you make up to justify your fixed interpretation of your favourite myth is that science requires testable predictions. That's why it gets modified when new evidence comes to light. That's the difference between blind faith, in which you already 'know' the truth, so all observations must be bent and twisted to fit your 'knowledge', and genuine interest in the reality of the matter, where you modify your theories when something doesn't fit.

Your blind faith approach has never achieved anything. Science has given you the technology you use to preach your blind faith.
How can they have testable predictions when they don’t really know how things began? Have they been able to create the same thing and begin a whole new world? Isn’t that what it would come down to to be right?

“Blind faith” taught me how the world began and who began it...I’m not still trying to come up with a feasible answer.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
you reject the Biblical claim of intelligent design
claims of inerrant accuracy without evidence

How can they have testable predictions when they don’t really know how things began? Have they been able to create the same thing and begin a whole new world? Isn’t that what it would come down to to be right?

“Blind faith” taught me how the world began and who began it...I’m not still trying to come up with a feasible answer.
Science makes up models based on evidence. Those models are required to be testable. And the tests need to be done before the model being accepted. And, if new evidence comes in, the model is tested against the new evidence and modified if need be. This is the scientific method.

What you are seeing in the OP is *exactly* what science *should* be doing: looking at the evidence and changing the model if there is an issue.

Science doesn't claim to have *final answers*. It always looks at the model that best fits the available evidence that is testable. it is *always* willing to change its evaluation based on new evidence.

And that is a good thing.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
You don’t have a willingness to learn though..you reject the Biblical claim of intelligent design, the creator God to explain how it all began and instead to try to fill that void with something else.



How can they have testable predictions when they don’t really know how things began? Have they been able to create the same thing and begin a whole new world? Isn’t that what it would come down to to be right?

“Blind faith” taught me how the world began and who began it...I’m not still trying to come up with a feasible answer.
The findings of science are never absolute, simply our best understanding for the time being. And that science checks and rechecks its conclusions, looking for anything that might be wrong.

And as science will tell you, as the evidence stands, the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, the sun and earth are about 4.5 bn years old, life on earth appeared about 3.5 bn years ago and humans, like all other species on the planet, are the result of evolution.

But you're fixated on the bible and its tales of creation by magic. That's your right, but it's a dang silly place to be standing when you want to be rude about science.

You never did account for the missing evidence of the Flood, did you, the stuff that HAS to be there if you're right ─ the total absence of a geological flood layer all over all continents, islands and the ocean floor and dated in the last 10,000 years; and the total absence of a genetic bottleneck in all species of land animals and all dating to the same date in the last ten thousand years; and that billion or more cubic miles of water that you said ─ I chuckle to recall ─ came and went through magic gates, for which you can offer neither evidence or explanation.

Scientific predictions can be tested for accuracy. Sometimes we find they're accurate, sometimes not.

That's quite different than the belief that god wrote the 10 commandments. You just admitted that we can't verify whether that claim is accurate.

So how could you ever justifiably believe something that you can't verify?

Still, since being rude about science is all you've got, and since you don't mind if it makes you look silly ─ enjoy!
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,297
claims of inerrant accuracy without evidence



Science makes up models based on evidence. Those models are required to be testable. And the tests need to be done before the model being accepted. And, if new evidence comes in, the model is tested against the new evidence and modified if need be. This is the scientific method.

What you are seeing in the OP is *exactly* what science *should* be doing: looking at the evidence and changing the model if there is an issue.

Science doesn't claim to have *final answers*. It always looks at the model that best fits the available evidence that is testable. it is *always* willing to change its evaluation based on new evidence.

And that is a good thing.
How is the Bible wrong? It’s just as right as scientists isn’t it? It gives its premise on how the world began and it’s a really good premise. Scientists can’t recreate the beginning at all. They don’t know and just have blind faith that it wasn’t intelligent design. They haven’t been able to recreate anything themselves and make a whole new world. They are clueless.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
You don’t have a willingness to learn though..you reject the Biblical claim of intelligent design, the creator God to explain how it all began and instead to try to fill that void with something else.



How can they have testable predictions when they don’t really know how things began? Have they been able to create the same thing and begin a whole new world? Isn’t that what it would come down to to be right?

“Blind faith” taught me how the world began and who began it...I’m not still trying to come up with a feasible answer.
My point was pretty simple. Science is a process. It's a process that's proven to be effective in improving understanding and knowledge of areas.
Is it perfect? Meh...people can argue the toss, but I'd suggest it's not. And even if it was, there are people involved, so...again...not perfect.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
How is the Bible wrong? It’s just as right as scientists isn’t it? It gives its premise on how the world began and it’s a really good premise. Scientists can’t recreate the beginning at all. They don’t know and just have blind faith that it wasn’t intelligent design. They haven’t been able to recreate anything themselves and make a whole new world. They are clueless.
We have plenty of those already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
 






Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,297
The findings of science are never absolute, simply our best understanding for the time being. And that science checks and rechecks its conclusions, looking for anything that might be wrong.

And as science will tell you, as the evidence stands, the universe is about 13.8 bn years old, the sun and earth are about 4.5 bn years old, life on earth appeared about 3.5 bn years ago and humans, like all other species on the planet, are the result of evolution.

But you're fixated on the bible and its tales of creation by magic. That's your right, but it's a dang silly place to be standing when you want to be rude about science.

You never did account for the missing evidence of the Flood, did you, the stuff that HAS to be there if you're right ─ the total absence of a geological flood layer all over all continents, islands and the ocean floor and dated in the last 10,000 years; and the total absence of a genetic bottleneck in all species of land animals and all dating to the same date in the last ten thousand years; and that billion or more cubic miles of water that you said ─ I chuckle to recall ─ came and went through magic gates, for which you can offer neither evidence or explanation.

Scientific predictions can be tested for accuracy. Sometimes we find they're accurate, sometimes not.

That's quite different than the belief that god wrote the 10 commandments. You just admitted that we can't verify whether that claim is accurate.

So how could you ever justifiably believe something that you can't verify?

Still, since being rude about science is all you've got, and since you don't mind if it makes you look silly ─ enjoy!
You’re the silly one not me. Your blind faith in science is all you’ve got. They haven’t proved anything at all. They have to come up with models that the earth is x amount of years old because anything shorter then what they’ve come up with won’t work..trying to make guesses science..

Where intelligent design speaks of a creator fitting this world around us humans. The air that we breathe, the plants and animals for food...it’s perfect here on earth for us. And the beauty of this world..endless things to discover and learn about just for our curious minds. And you want to say some bang made it all perfect for us..and you tell me I have blind faith...how much blind faith does it take to believe all that you believe?
 






Last edited:

Lisa

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
20,297
My point was pretty simple. Science is a process. It's a process that's proven to be effective in improving understanding and knowledge of areas.
Is it perfect? Meh...people can argue the toss, but I'd suggest it's not. And even if it was, there are people involved, so...again...not perfect.
Yet they can’t recreate how this world came into being but you believe they are onto some sort of knowledge that explains it all and some day they’ll get it right...which really means they are clueless and can’t figure it out.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,833
As many times as today's scientific "facts" (wild guesses) have become tomorrow's failed hypotheses, one would think idiots and barbarians would stop pretending those vain babblings are evidence of anything, other than our own ignorance.

1 Timothy 5:20-21
5:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE (knowledge) FALSELY SO CALLED:
5:21 Which some professing [to have] have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen.

We are literally in the midst of a worldwide crisis of critical thinking, which is exactly how witch doctors and scientists, with their fake knowledge, fake projections based upon nothing but assumptions, and their fake mainstream media propaganda have conned the entire world into believing there is a "pandemic" and that they really aren't crashing the national economies of this world INTENTIONALLY, TO FOMENT WW3.

Given the choice between "a Book", roughly two-thirds of which is prophecy, over 99% of which has been fulfilled in exact and minute detail over the past 3500 years, or a bunch of people dressed in white lab coats that don't have a clue how the human body works, much less how it was made or what actually causes disease, what would be the logical go-to source for TRUTHFUL information (i.e. REAL evidence)?

There is a joke circulating these days that pokes fun at the modern scientific understanding of creation, which seems worth sharing. The tale starts with a group of scientists who are fed up with the literal interpretation of Genesis and the creation story, and plan to show God how they can create something out of nothing themselves, and then "evolve" that simple life form into a human animal body with their "knowledge".

God accepts the challenge and asks that the scientists go first. But when the first scientist bends over to scoop up some earth, God intervenes, letting the scientists know that for them to fulfill their claims, they cannot use His earth; they need to make their own.

We already KNOW that Darwinism is a mathematical impossibility. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a complete fantasy/fairy tale. A sick joke.

Everyone who chooses not to believe God and the Bible, seems to like to quote "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", that all life came out of the sea, as their so-called proof that God doesn't exist, without realizing where Darwin got his theory from. Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and the Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED (Adam) man, SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

So much for the science of yesterday. What will people think of today's scientific assumptions in another 150-200 years? That they too are equally ridiculous?

If you want to know the REASON for The Creation and the REAL REASON for human-life on Earth, read:-
The Way home or face The Fire
 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,966
The difference between what scientists make up and what you make up to justify your fixed interpretation of your favourite myth is that science requires testable predictions. That's why it gets modified when new evidence comes to light. That's the difference between blind faith, in which you already 'know' the truth, so all observations must be bent and twisted to fit your 'knowledge', and genuine interest in the reality of the matter, where you modify your theories when something doesn't fit.

Your blind faith approach has never achieved anything. Science has given you the technology you use to preach your blind faith.
As far as I can tell, no evolutionist has modified their theory of deep time when they found proteins in dinosaur bones. Instead they tried to propose previously unknown mechanisms that would maintain the integrity those unstable organic structures indefinitely.


Time is not always the friend of evolution after all?!!
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,579
science requires testable predictions.
You can only empirically test that which is empirically testable. The supernatural is not empirically testable, therefore such theories are solely reliable on reason and logic.

This is one of those blatant flaws people like Dawkins with their naturalistic beliefs keep making, when he says that miracles are impossible because they can't be tested by natural or scientific means. Why yes. That's the very definition of a miracle.
 






Last edited:

LittleLady

Established
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
414
The fact that there are so many religions just proves humanity's rebellion against God. There's also various religions so we can be confused and satan hopes that we never find out the truth, because knowing of him, he wants us to be separated from God for obvious reasons. If you look at the Bible, you see there are many stories of people building golden statues and what not and openly worshipping them. They knew of Gods existence, but they decided to be hard headed and follow their own ways. I believe that happened in the story of Moses. We also see in Noah's story that everyone literally had almost or over a Millenium to repent while Noah and his family were building the ark, but they repented not.

My point is, many people know God exists but they don't seek him. Some people actually really don't know he exists, and that's when you start telling them as much as you can about the Bible. So with that being said, I can totally answer any questions you have about the Bible, Gods existence, and faith if you'd like. Judging by your replies to the others though, I can almost sense that even if I tried to give you some info, you would personally debunk it in a matter of seconds.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
You can only empirically test that which is empirically testable. The supernatural is not empirically testable, therefore such theories are solely reliable on reason and logic.

This is one of those blatant flaws people like Dawkins with their naturalistic beliefs keep making, when he says that miracles are impossible because they can't be tested by natural or scientific means. Why yes. That's the very definition of a miracle.
The real problem comes in when whether or not something even exists is unknown (or worse, unknowable). As soon as that is in the equation on a topic/item/concept then there has to be evidence of its existence before it can even be investigated. Until then it is even less than a theory - because a lot of times, certain things posited as "supernatural" don't even have anything verifiable/real to base a hypothesis in. For instance, some assertion or idea of a multiverse - you can say all day that you "hypothesize" that this or that is true, but how do you make good on that hypothesis through verification of its truth? Can you demonstrate the multiverse? Where does one even start? ETs - the same. Spirits - the same. God - the same.

It isn't a matter of scientists "limiting themselves" - its a matter of the realities of our universe containing what they contain, and not containing what they do not contain. If you're miffed that there's "not enough" (aka ZERO) ghosts (for example) floating around - blame reality. It makes no sense to blame scientists.

This is how I view it. The supernatural can't be tested or verified scientifically. So science can't "officially" make any determination about the supernatural.

Since none of it can be verified, it is just theories about reality which is beyond any possible testing. So in the supernatural, your theories can be as crazy or as sensible, to yourself, as you want to make them since no body could disprove anything you claim about the supernatural.

One supernatural theory or idea is as good as any other. Pick whatever you like or create your own.

So science can be mistaken, wrong. Generally the idea behind science is in attempting to disprove a theory. Folks go about trying to disprove a theory any which way they can think of. Of course it has to be disprovable in the first place. Supernatural theories by their nature can't be disproven. Something that has be tested and tried to disprove several times by several different people is then accepted as factual. It could still be proven wrong at some future date. Some smart person may find a way to disprove something that has been scientifically accepted as fact.

Personal observation and experience/feelings about a subject is not really sufficiently robust enough to accept a theory as scientific.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
The fact that there are so many religions just proves humanity's rebellion against God. There's also various religions so we can be confused and satan hopes that we never find out the truth, because knowing of him, he wants us to be separated from God for obvious reasons.
"there are lots of other religions which I don't believe in, therefore my religion is true"


You don't believe in millions of other gods, we atheists just don't believe in one more than you.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
As many times as today's scientific "facts" (wild guesses) have become tomorrow's failed hypotheses, one would think idiots and barbarians would stop pretending those vain babblings are evidence of anything, other than our own ignorance.

1 Timothy 5:20-21
5:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and OPPOSITIONS OF SCIENCE (knowledge) FALSELY SO CALLED:
5:21 Which some professing [to have] have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen.

We are literally in the midst of a worldwide crisis of critical thinking, which is exactly how witch doctors and scientists, with their fake knowledge, fake projections based upon nothing but assumptions, and their fake mainstream media propaganda have conned the entire world into believing there is a "pandemic" and that they really aren't crashing the national economies of this world INTENTIONALLY, TO FOMENT WW3.

Given the choice between "a Book", roughly two-thirds of which is prophecy, over 99% of which has been fulfilled in exact and minute detail over the past 3500 years, or a bunch of people dressed in white lab coats that don't have a clue how the human body works, much less how it was made or what actually causes disease, what would be the logical go-to source for TRUTHFUL information (i.e. REAL evidence)?

There is a joke circulating these days that pokes fun at the modern scientific understanding of creation, which seems worth sharing. The tale starts with a group of scientists who are fed up with the literal interpretation of Genesis and the creation story, and plan to show God how they can create something out of nothing themselves, and then "evolve" that simple life form into a human animal body with their "knowledge".

God accepts the challenge and asks that the scientists go first. But when the first scientist bends over to scoop up some earth, God intervenes, letting the scientists know that for them to fulfill their claims, they cannot use His earth; they need to make their own.

We already KNOW that Darwinism is a mathematical impossibility. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a complete fantasy/fairy tale. A sick joke.

Everyone who chooses not to believe God and the Bible, seems to like to quote "Darwin's Theory of Evolution", that all life came out of the sea, as their so-called proof that God doesn't exist, without realizing where Darwin got his theory from. Darwin was NOT so clever, he just knew how to read and he himself must have believed God and the Bible, because that is exactly where he got his information from.

God states on the very FIRST page of the Bible that all life EXCEPT MAN - the Adamic race - came out of the sea (Evolution or Creation) - Genesis chapter 1 verse 20. Afterwards God CREATED (Adam) man, SEPARATELY, on the sixth day.

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the WATERS bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Before his death, Darwin acknowledged that there was a "missing-link" and he admitted that he was wrong about the Adamic Race having evolved from apes.

So much for the science of yesterday. What will people think of today's scientific assumptions in another 150-200 years? That they too are equally ridiculous?

If you want to know the REASON for The Creation and the REAL REASON for human-life on Earth, read:-
The Way home or face The Fire
 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
1,820
We KNOW evolution happens because we can see it in the animal kingdom, "survival of the fittest" and all that, but at the same time there seems to be a guiding hand behind it, keeping it on track..:)-

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency must be involved.
Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?
Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe p.27

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"

 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,579
The real problem comes in when whether or not something even exists is unknown (or worse, unknowable). As soon as that is in the equation on a topic/item/concept then there has to be evidence of its existence before it can even be investigated. Until then it is even less than a theory - because a lot of times, certain things posited as "supernatural" don't even have anything verifiable/real to base a hypothesis in. For instance, some assertion or idea of a multiverse - you can say all day that you "hypothesize" that this or that is true, but how do you make good on that hypothesis through verification of its truth? Can you demonstrate the multiverse? Where does one even start? ETs - the same. Spirits - the same. God - the same.

It isn't a matter of scientists "limiting themselves" - its a matter of the realities of our universe containing what they contain, and not containing what they do not contain. If you're miffed that there's "not enough" (aka ZERO) ghosts (for example) floating around - blame reality. It makes no sense to blame scientists.

This is how I view it. The supernatural can't be tested or verified scientifically. So science can't "officially" make any determination about the supernatural.

Since none of it can be verified, it is just theories about reality which is beyond any possible testing. So in the supernatural, your theories can be as crazy or as sensible, to yourself, as you want to make them since no body could disprove anything you claim about the supernatural.

One supernatural theory or idea is as good as any other. Pick whatever you like or create your own.

So science can be mistaken, wrong. Generally the idea behind science is in attempting to disprove a theory. Folks go about trying to disprove a theory any which way they can think of. Of course it has to be disprovable in the first place. Supernatural theories by their nature can't be disproven. Something that has be tested and tried to disprove several times by several different people is then accepted as factual. It could still be proven wrong at some future date. Some smart person may find a way to disprove something that has been scientifically accepted as fact.

Personal observation and experience/feelings about a subject is not really sufficiently robust enough to accept a theory as scientific.
Our two discussion are entirely overlapping at this point, but we need to get past the relevant point. Is science or empirical observation the only way for us to know reality?
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
You’re the silly one not me. Your blind faith in science is all you’ve got. They haven’t proved anything at all. They have to come up with models that the earth is x amount of years old because anything shorter then what they’ve come up with won’t work..trying to make guesses science..

Where intelligent design speaks of a creator fitting this world around us humans. The air that we breathe, the plants and animals for food...it’s perfect here on earth for us. And the beauty of this world..endless things to discover and learn about just for our curious minds. And you want to say some bang made it all perfect for us..and you tell me I have blind faith...how much blind faith does it take to believe all that you believe?
First of all, that's a blatant shift of the burden of proof. YOU are claiming that these stories are accurate. Upto you to support them.

Secondly, I don't think I ever claimed that these are fairy tales. I just don't believe these stories to be accurate. And the reason for that is failure of people like you to meet the burden of proof. What I will say though, is that because you fail to meet your burden of proof, these stories are indistinguishable from fairy tales.

Asking to prove that a character in a story is a fictional character, moreover, is a dishonest request in and off itself, because it's a logical impossibility to do so.

You can't demonstrate the non-existance of something like that. You can only demonstrate the opposite.
At best, you can point out that there is no contemporary independent corroborating evidence to support the existance of said character. But that doesn't mean the character didn't exist. It just means that there is currently no valid reason to think otherwise.


So, all in all, your request here is a prime example of fallacious reasoning from top to bottom.
Meet your own burden proof.
 






TagliatelliMonster

Established
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
145
Our two discussion are entirely overlapping at this point, but we need to get past the relevant point. Is science or empirical observation the only way for us to know reality?
Don't dodge. There is a HUGE difference between metaphysical and methodological naturalism and from what I read, that difference seems hugely relevant to the thread topic.

I, for example, subscribe to methodological naturalism - eventhough I don't subscribe to it dogmatically.

If tomorrow science discovers the supernatural and develops the tools necessary to gauge it, great.

Until that time, methodological naturalism seems perfectly reasonable for scientific investigation.
 






A Freeman

Star
Joined
Nov 11, 2019
Messages
1,833
From: https://upliftconnect.com/existence-of-god/


Could This Change How We Think About God and The Universe?
Recent scientific discoveries have physicists and philosophers alike radically revising their ideas on the nature of the universe, and indeed the existence of God. Countless years and hours of calculations and mind-bending theories continue to reach the conclusion that the universe has a beginning, and did not occur by chance. In 2004 notorious atheist, Andrew Fleet, announced his retirement from the stringent rhetoric of atheism, based on these conclusions. He changed his mind.
"Research into DNA has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved." – Andrew Fleet
Many Scientists now believe the existence of God is not only possible but probable. From their perspective, an intelligent force predating our universe initiated creation. And what’s more, scientific minds have drawn clear links between this force of intelligence and the spiritual realm.

Many scientists now believe an intelligent force predating our universe initiated creation.

Renowned Nuclear Physicist, Gerald Schroeder, discusses this at length in the book titled God According to God.

"The study of nature, even with all its intellectual rigor, is filled with spiritual wonder….Every physical object in this
vast universe, including our human bodies, is built of the light of creation."


But while these developments have generated a burst of discussion around the topic of spirituality, it would be a mistake to misinterpret them as religious events. The God at the heart of this debate is not the personal God found in organized religions. Rather, this God represents the laws of nature and is no stranger to the world of science.

Einstein believed in a God represented by order, harmony, beauty, simplicity and elegance, the God of Spinoza.
– Michio Kaku

Rather than a religious figure, the God they refer to represents the laws of nature.
 






Top