Nye Booed for pointing out Moon reflects the Sun

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by MR2T, Aug 12, 2007.

  1. Yeah, I see where you're going with that. And I know you also see my point with "reasonable" proof verses absolute definitive proof.

    I would argue that the existence of God, and the beginnings of life cannot be proved or disproved at any (reasonable) level.
  2. the point is that Science is created by humans and has therefore a degree of fallibility. It isnt 100% truth and the simple fact that is so , any chance, no matter how large or infinitesimal that God may be a real part of it cannot be discounted. It can be ignored but never disproven.
  3. My fake ass will kill you on Yahoo Chess.
  4. there was "doubting Thomas"... and Jesus did have to perform a miracle to get some of the apostles on board. remember the fishing trip?

    faith IS belief without proof. i have absolutely no proof that tells me that Jesus really is who He is, nor any proof that my belief system is the TRUE one out there, but i still believe in Jesus and the holy trinity, and that the Catholic church is at least on the right track with God's word.
  5. its believing without PROOF yes, i'm saying that faith isn't just believing without any evidence.
  6. It's sunlight, you stupid #$%#.
  7. ok, so what's the evidence?
  8. Jesus?

    You can't possibly say theres no evidence for Jesus or what he did. Not after having studied the matter quite thoroughly.
  9. There is practically no evidence of jesus or most of the gospel characters.
  10. then humor me: what evidence of Jesus as divine and his miracles?
  12. Now you're starting to sound like Mc777.
  13. I would argue that by the Abrahamic definition, God is supernatural and therefore CANNOT be examined by science, as the supernature (again by definition), that which is outside of nature and therefore cannot be governed by the "laws" of nature, nor replicated, nor subject to scrutiny by the scientific method. The only way to "know" God, if one exists, would then be through faith.
  14. Or perhaps it can. We haven't even begun to really scratch the surface of science. I believe that "God" exists, but it is far beyond our ability to conceptualize. Much like it would be impossible to teach a spider the concept behind Microsoft Windows.
  15. Possibly, but that would encompass God in the natural world, which would be resisted pretty hard by most Christians.
  16. as someone who believes in God, i could see it perfectly reasonable that said God would choose to act, if he even does, via physical forces in the universe, and therefore be something we could feasibly observe in some way. i also would see it perfectly reasonable that said God could use whatever means we couldnt even explain with all the knowledge inside the universe.

    so yeah.
  17. I believe that also. Things like gravity, physics, electromagnetic forces... could all be directly created according to laws set by God and wed never know it. But thats what I believe to be true.

  18. Watchmaker theory?
  19. I love NB. k

    NB: SCN master of logic
  20. not to the extent Intelligent Design would take it, but i find it perfectly acceptable to think that God "gave" us the keen eyes we have to see with as a long self-guided evolution of eyes all the way back to photo-sensitive cells like those on starfish; that he basically attained it via a biological process.

    im also saying i could see it reasonable that a God could just say "#$%# that" and stick his hand in and change something around completely with no other effect on the universe.
  21. That's reasonable, but that would still require at least one single supernatural, scientifically inexplicable, act to set in motion. I certainly can't disprove that God didn't use natural processes to achieve an end.
  22. true enough, and i agree. if i took the picture i was painting out far enough, i'd have to agree w/ that.
  23. Yeah, that's where I was going with the watchmaker thing. Though that whacks up free will, and I'd like to think free will exists just on personal grounds. Though a less rigid system could probably allow for both. You can predict something big like evolution pretty accuratly, but perhaps not the specific actions of the individual constituents. Though chaos theory might disagree given a long enough timeframe. Guh, I'm going to go eat something.
  24. i still feel an Abrahamic God would have the sort of power and ability to even plan out evolution as finely as it has played out, yet still leave free will open to the peeps (and yes, there's good ol' Chaos Theory to complicate things), though Tahoeman/Smited would start a big shit fit about that <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
  25. This thread is turning me into an extremist. Mostly an extremist hate of this same thread that pops up every 6 weeks

Share This Page