Jesus was a Liberal
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
Just to clarify that in context here, consider the core claim of religion, that there’s a supernatural being that has some interest in us and acts in the world. I think that claim is intrinsically not falsifiable, I can’t imagine any evidence that could prove it to be false, so the counter claim, that there is no such being, is logically indefensible. One could also argue that means the evidence in its favour doesn’t matter either, it’s invulnerable to any kind of evidence and is thus propositionally vacuous, but I think it’s too important to dismiss it so lightly. We have to look at the other side, what evidence is there that it might be true. I’ve never seen any that doesn’t admit of more prosaic explanations than the actions of a deity so I don’t accept the claim that there is such a being. I would not assert that there is no god, only that I find no good reason to think there is, so I live my life on the assumption that there isn’t.
So how would you check your results?
Its a conundrum like trying to desribe a hole without describing its surroundings.
Its a conundrum like trying to desribe a hole without describing its surroundings.
What makes you believe a manifestion of something not physical will manifest in the physical realm? Thats sloppy science.
What makes you think I believe that? You consistently draw false conclusions about what I believe, like back up in post #33 where you apparently concluded I'd said "Nobody would be grateful to still have family, love, community, friendships, morals life..." when what I actually said was that nobody would be grateful for not having their basic material needs met.
That's not science at all, the sloppy science is thinking there's something non-physical out there in the first place, there's no scientific evidence for that. Besides, if god can't, or doesn't, manifest in the physical realm he's pretty limited in what he can do in the world, which is deeply inconsistent with how he's usually believed to be.
That's not science at all, the sloppy science is thinking there's something non-physical out there in the first place, there's no scientific evidence for that. Besides, if god can't, or doesn't, manifest in the physical realm he's pretty limited in what he can do in the world, which is deeply inconsistent with how he's usually believed to be.
There you go again. I didn’t specify it had to be physical proof or evidence, I’ve asked for any evidence at all that this non-corporeal being exists and acts in the world. Nobody has ever been able to provide anything that can withstand routine skeptical scrutiny.
Not necessarily, he could plant ideas or information in people’s heads telepathically they would not otherwise have, but realistically, if he can’t act physically in the world he can’t be of much value. Physical evidence would be more convincing, some event that admits of no other possible explanation than divine intervention.
Like turning water into wine, or bread into fishes (or was that fishes into bread), or whiskey into better whiskey? Etc…
Something in the noggin? Like self awareness and a capacity of unlimited creativity with godlike abilities to alter, create new inorganic and organic material using the gift of arcs, angels and fire.
Only one lifeform on this planet can make a perfect cube.
Only one lifeform on this planet can make a perfect cube.
Or a missing two sets of Chromosomes that make us unique from apes who have 28?
The great apes have 24 pairs, we have 23, but no matter, that’s hardly evidence of divine intervention, if anything it suggests the opposite. Lots of much simpler creatures have way more than that, into the hundreds at least, possibly thousands if memory serves.
Just as an off shoot to that, there's now evidence of a domestic dog breeding with a south American Fox.
First Documented Case Of Hybridization Between A Dog And A Pampas Fox
Fifty percent pampas fox, 50 percent dog, 100 percent one-of-a-kind.
www.iflscience.com
A "miracle", I suppose, since this hasn't happened before.
Or maybe twisted fate/evolution.
It's enough of a difference. Go ahead be a monkey. Apparently you dont appreciate the fact that we are leaps and bounds ahead of of any life form.
When it comes to God and Science, I'm in good company with Newton, Einstein, Darwin and hundreds of other who simply can't deny a God or creator exists.
"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." - Charles Darwin.
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God".[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist",[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a "religious nonbeliever."[3] In other interviews, he has stated that he thinks there is a "lawgiver" who sets the laws of the universe.[6] Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding "one life is enough for me."[7]
Newton's conception of the physical world provided a model of the natural world that would reinforce stability and harmony in the civic world. Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.
Need more? I'm in good company.
Why is life in the left handed?
Neither do I, but I consider it highly improbable. See my post #42 above.
Nope. Doesn't mean any of you are right, and it seems worth noting that the three views you quote are very different. What's true isn't established by popularity.
Interesting, but not unprecedented, all species of the Equus genus (horses, donkeys, and zebras) can interbreed, but usually produce sterile hybrids like mules and hinnies. Be interesting to know if that dog-fox hybrid was sterile, and who its parents were.
Lay out the numbers Mr Spock.
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
Open your smug eyes. All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
Smug am I? Can't you maintain a civil discourse? When you start tossing out insults, the conversation's over.
Where's those odds Mr Spock? Are you self aware or not?
Aren't you the prick who doubted my resume because I'm in the happy camp of Science and you say I'm slinging fucking insults? Where is the logic in that Mr Spock?