religion

[Whirled]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who has a 1st edition bible?

[Eliseus]

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

Holy fuck. Is everyone else reading this?

I'm pretty sure at this point that you're just trolling because I have a hard time believing that anyone's reading comprehension is that poor. But I'll give you some quick answers just in case it is.

The definition of supernatural that you gave works for the most part. Anything outside of the realm of the natural world is supernatural. A creator god would have to be outside of the natural world, else he or she couldn't create it.

Science only deals with the natural world, so no, scientific theories cannot be supernatural because the supernatural lies outside the realm of science. Which is why science makes no claim about gods, ghosts, goblins or spooks. Having said that, there are pseudo-sciences that do make that claim, so I understand the confusion.

Hell, science does god-like things now. Or at least it would appear so to a person a couple of centuries ago.

As to whether you agree with me or not, honestly I'm expecting you not to. That matters to me not a whit. What does matter is that I make a well reasoned argument, which is difficult given that the material that you've left me to work with is rife with non-sequiturs and confoundedly poor logic. But I like a challenge. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One question though:

Are you yet another one who believes that all scientists sit in labs using nothing but a Ouija board and a pair of dice or maybe some mouse entrails to create scientific theories?

So, your implication is that the definition of supernatural is only relevant whenever science claims its relevant or not.

I would ask if you are one of those people that spam about reading comprehension whenever someone disagrees with you, but you already made that answer obvious.

I don't think scientists do that, and in fact have not even once in this thread claimed that god is the all mighty. I have simply provided logic to your guys argument which usually results in angry responses that I just don't get it, when there is no grey areas or not understanding the definitions and facts that I have provided. You are the one to claim that things that things without any real proof are true while claiming religious views are without a doubt 100% fabricated, which is the same idea as a theory.

Let me ask you a question, are you one of those people that feels because shitty things happen, or you personally are such a piece of shit that God must not exist, because if he did, this stuff wouldn't happen? Because there is NO scientific evidence at all to prove God doesn't exist, matter of fact, there is more scientific theories that would point to the possibility than not just from logical thinking.

[Glenzig]

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

Good question. I'm an engineer not a scientist, (although I sometimes wish that I had chosen science instead) so I'm limited to reviewing evidence found in the field, and reading how scientists interpreted that evidence. I have no real problems with any science, so I'll stick to explaining why I accept evolutionary theory as opposed to rejecting it.

You're probably quite a bit younger than I am so suffice to say that I've had decades to delve into evolutionary study and review research findings. I've also had decades to research and review creationist and ID claims. What I look for are reasonable and logical interpretations of evidence as it relates to the natural universe. In other words, I've removed the possibility of supernatural influence from the equation. What I've found is that evolutionary science satisfies those requirements and explains the biosphere with enough clarity and precision to accept that the interpretations are valid. Further, the science is predictive, and in each instance where a prediction could be verified (in the field of microbiology for example), it has been.

When I add the possibility of divine intervention back into the equation and examine the claims of creationism, I find no evidence to support such a claim. But I suppose if there were evidence, we'd all be believers.

There you have my, albeit brief, honest answer.

Good enough. Thank you for actually answering honestly. I actually do the same thing with the exception of ruling out anything supernatural. Does that make me dumb? Maybe, but I'm not really that worried about that. I myself have never been able to reconcile the high level of design found in even the lowest forms of life in the natural world with there being no creator. Design to me, must always infer a designer.
Take stone hence for example. No one knows exactly who built it, or exactly when. We have never met and seen whomever it was that built it. But even at with something that seems to be so simple, stones laying on stones in a circle, is not given a purely natural explanation. No reasonable person would deny that stonehenge was designed.

The universe runs on existing laws. It shows design to high a superbly high degree. Otherwise we would not even be able to keep time.

Based on that I cannot reject the idea of a creator. Design comes from intelligence. Also what I have learned in my decades of reading and studying the bible in no way contradicts science. I know this will be a point of contention for most people, but I have not found an area where the bible touches on science (after all, it was never meant to be a scientific textbook) that is inaccurate. Misunderstood, yes, but not actually inaccurate. There are also areas where the bible touches on science and explains things that were no known at the time. To me this is a strong evidence of its source.

I also wanted to point out that I have never shied away from pro evolution books or websites. In fact I find them the most enlightening. I'm currently reading a book from the early 1900's about the formation of the doctrine of evolution.

[leewong]

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

"If, now, that right eye of yours is making you stumble, tear it out and throw it away p. 7from you. For it is more beneficial to you for one of your members to be lost to you than for your whole body to be pitched into Gehenna.”—Matthew 5:29.

Of course, Jesus was not advocating self-mutilation. Rather, he was stressing metaphorically that we should be willing to cut out of our life anything that is spiritually harmful. True, the action we take may be very painful. But it will protect us.

So why doesnt the verse say that instead? Pretty unclear for a holy book if you ask me. Either God gives horribly vague instructions that are open for any interpretation or it was meant for literal translation.

If I was omnipotent and wanted to instruct my creation, I think I could do WAY better. Hell, I am not omnipotent and I could still right a book that has less contradictions and less cryptic verses.

So we are left with two possibilities, God intentionally gave unclear instructions or God is not that good at communicating his message. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

Lastly, you seem to be avoiding the two verses I listed about giving away your material possessions. Is there some cryptic interpretation that allows you to ignore them as well?

[paulgiamatti]

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

I have not found an area where the bible touches on science that is inaccurate. Misunderstood, yes, but not actually inaccurate.

And here we have Christian apologetics in a nutshell. It doesn't matter how absurd the religious claim is, it is always being misconstrued in some way by the non-believer. God created the earth six days? Oh no, they didn't mean literally six days. Be more open-minded!

This is absolute drivel. It's nothing more than the byproduct of an ancient, superstitious and out-moded belief system which we'd be so much better off without. If you want to believe in it, knock yourself out. Don't teach it to my kids, and don't expect a kind reply from me when you approach my doorstep attempting to win converts to your sadistic cult.

[Eliseus]

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

So why doesnt the verse say that instead? Pretty unclear for a holy book if you ask me. Either God gives horribly vague instructions that are open for any interpretation or it was meant for literal translation.

If I was omnipotent and wanted to instruct my creation, I think I could do WAY better. Hell, I am not omnipotent and I could still right a book that has less contradictions and less cryptic verses.

So we are left with two possibilities, God intentionally gave unclear instructions or God is not that good at communicating his message. Either way it doesnt look good for him.

Lastly, you seem to be avoiding the two verses I listed about giving away your material possessions. Is there some cryptic interpretation that allows you to ignore them as well?

What, that is your argument? That something in the "The bible" (I put quotes, because although the bible is generally the same among all religions that have it, there has been some interpretations that certain things have been corrupted, or misinterpreted and either changed or omitted) couldn't be possibly misinterpreted or rather spoken in such a different tongue that someone like you just doesn't understand it? So God works in such a way that if someone like you fails to understand the meaning or the metaphorical meaning behind something, then he must not be God because he would make it so that idiots like you would understand? Or you know God so well that some things are literal meaning? I'm trying to understand, either way though, you seem to profess your understanding for knowing this benevolent been so well yet claim he doesn't exist at the same time. Maybe you should listen to those who do believes words or understanding rather then coming up with your own understanding that you seem to obviously not get. I'm not saying what Glenzig even says is the correct meaning, I'm just trying to better understand your ignorance.

[paulgiamatti]

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

Based on that I cannot reject the idea of a creator. Design comes from intelligence.

All we're saying is we need more evidence than, "Hmm, seems like it was designed." Grandiose claims that there was an intelligent, omnipotent life form that designed and created the universe requires massive, huge, irrefutable, undeniable evidence. Until you can provide such, it is still mine and every reasonable person's view that dismissing these claims is completely rational.

[leewong]

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

Good enough. Thank you for actually answering honestly. I actually do the same thing with the exception of ruling out anything supernatural. Does that make me dumb? Maybe, but I'm not really that worried about that. I myself have never been able to reconcile the high level of design found in even the lowest forms of life in the natural world with there being no creator. Design to me, must always infer a designer.
Take stone hence for example. No one knows exactly who built it, or exactly when. We have never met and seen whomever it was that built it. But even at with something that seems to be so simple, stones laying on stones in a circle, is not given a purely natural explanation. No reasonable person would deny that stonehenge was designed.

The universe runs on existing laws. It shows design to high a superbly high degree. Otherwise we would not even be able to keep time.

Based on that I cannot reject the idea of a creator. Design comes from intelligence. Also what I have learned in my decades of reading and studying the bible in no way contradicts science. I know this will be a point of contention for most people, but I have not found an area where the bible touches on science (after all, it was never meant to be a scientific textbook) that is inaccurate. Misunderstood, yes, but not actually inaccurate. There are also areas where the bible touches on science and explains things that were no known at the time. To me this is a strong evidence of its source.

I also wanted to point out that I have never shied away from pro evolution books or websites. In fact I find them the most enlightening. I'm currently reading a book from the early 1900's about the formation of the doctrine of evolution.

You comparison is very poor. We know humans build things, we have found tools around Stonehenge along with other objects which place humans there. When was the last time you seen an omnipotent being create something?

[Eliseus]

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

All we're saying is we need more evidence than, "Hmm, seems like it was designed." Grandiose claims that there was an intelligent, omnipotent life form that designed and created the universe requires massive, huge, irrefutable, undeniable evidence. Until you can provide such, it is still mine and every reasonable person's view that dismissing these claims is completely rational.

You use the word Grandiose way too much. You also keep using it as such that it only exists in religion. But to your last comment, it is just back and forth bs that never gets anywhere because the same applies to the different arguments that have come forth in this thread, yet you keep claiming that it doesn't, but can't provide anything to counter it, therefore being on the same bases as "Grandiose claims".

[paulgiamatti]

If you want to continue conflating theory with claim, go right ahead. It's your stupidity that's being broadcast, not mine.