Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[r00t]

Why is it scientifically impossible to prove the existence of a creator? You guys "proved" evolution with major gaps in the evidence.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why is it scientifically impossible to prove the existence of a creator? You guys "proved" evolution with major gaps in the evidence.

the materialistic requirements. there's a lot of physical evidence that is used to make the line of evolution (using human evolution for a model), and where there are missing fossils the changes can be traced using older fossils in comparison to younger ones. that argument banks on the a priori model for disproof, but when the a priori is applied to a notion of a creative deity it also refutes that notion. aquinas did that (paraphrase: God is the uncaused cause) and it has been the argument perpetuated by the early church and subsequent churches since the 1200's.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Ikonoclastia [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Unless somebody has some secret proof of what existed before the universe existed (big bang) or proof of the existence of a creator (which is not scientifically impossible) then you're all going to have to agree to disagree.

Science can't say for certain there is not a creator, nor can't science and a creator together not be possible and people who believe in a creator can't say for certain there is a god (because belief in god requires not knowing or faith).

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. I don't feel that anyone should have any belief forced upon them. But I also deserve the right to defend my beliefs. I also feel that science and God/the bible/faith are compatible. The issue isn't with science, that's a straw man argument intended to persuade people to believe that those who have a belief in God cannot also have a belief in science. The issue comes in where evolutionary science is concerned. Much like the early church fathers twisted the meaning of scripture to fit their own personal views that included all manner of occultic and pagan religious beliefs, evolutionary scientists have twisted the scientific process to fit their own personal beliefs, which include many of the same occultic and pagan religious beliefs.
I love science myself. It has always been one of my favorite subjects. But evolution does not follow the scientific method. It follows the same method as all of the religions that it seeks to condemn.
Also, faith is not an absence of knowledge.

[r00t]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the materialistic requirements. there's a lot of physical evidence that is used to make the line of evolution (using human evolution for a model), and where there are missing fossils the changes can be traced using older fossils in comparison to younger ones. that argument banks on the a priori model for disproof, but when the a priori is applied to a notion of a creative deity it also refutes that notion. aquinas did that (paraphrase: God is the uncaused cause) and it has been the argument perpetuated by the early church and subsequent churches since the 1200's.

So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?

[Ahldagor]

great scene from a good series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVgK5HKj3P4

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?

depends on your interpretation of the Revelation of St. John. 144k, 12k from the 12 tribes, is in there, so are you one of the lucky chosen? at that point it becomes pascal's wager which is also his folly because if you cannot know the mind of god then how does one know that god won't punish you for being superstitious, having a lack in one's faith essentially. if your interpretation of Revelation is looser than that then the question of a potential stance of contradiction comes into play in regards to interpreting the text. it's a muddy situation, and if it is all true and comes to fruition it would be a grandiose eschatological enactment; i have a good idea of what would happen to me though.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So what about when the rapture happens and Jesus returns to reign in blood, will it still be scientifically unprovable to you atheists?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

[Lojik]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i have a good idea of what would happen to me though.

The gif you posted earlier?

[r00t]

What I am saying is that making a statement like "proving god exists is not scientifically possible" is in itself unscientific, as the statement goes against the scientific method since you are jumping from hypothesis to conclusion without conducting any experimentation or analysis.

Basically related to why people find atheists so annoying.

[r00t]

It's basically like saying its impossible to prove micro organisms exist just because you don't have a microscope.