God & Science Proved!
- Thread starter RadoX
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,249
- Location
- Inverkip
I believe in God because I believe that something does not come from nothing ergo, a higher power, namely God, created the universe. Just because we have no scientific evidence does not mean He does not exist it just means we have not found anything either way to prove or disprove. Human evolution from the apes (have we actually found the final link to prove that?) doesn't mean that God didn't build it into our design.
Science has been full of those who are eager to say that something does not exist or cannot work or cannot be done. It wasn't that long ago that they predicted a vehicle travelling at over 30mph would be lethal to the occupants or that the earth was flat.
Science has been full of those who are eager to say that something does not exist or cannot work or cannot be done. It wasn't that long ago that they predicted a vehicle travelling at over 30mph would be lethal to the occupants or that the earth was flat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Because you can't prove that Hogwarts doesn't exist, it does. Because there is more evidence for its existence than a God, you ought to believe it by following the principles you set out there.
lol @ you believing in Harry Potter.
Last edited:
We did not evolve from Monkeys, in fact Humans are more closely related to modern Apes than to Monkeys...however Humans did not evolve from Apes either....
Humans share a common ancestor with modern African Apes, about 5-8million years ago I believe, but we did not evolve from them.
Last edited:
The difference is that 'Hogwarts' was an invention of JK Rowling.....she doesn't attribute any reality to it, and none is implied.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
It being the invention of something makes no absolutely no difference in my comparison. Both concepts were invented.
Its 23:35 on a Saturday night and I find this post laugh and wake the missus up Whoops.
Not a happy women now.
I'm sure the OP is on crack lol.
The plants came before Sunlight theory the OP has going is AMAZING, you ever heard of
Photosynthesis?
Well this made my night.
lmfao
Not a happy women now.
I'm sure the OP is on crack lol.
The plants came before Sunlight theory the OP has going is AMAZING, you ever heard of
Photosynthesis?
Well this made my night.
lmfao
The difference is that we can (as far as anything can be) prove that JK Rowling invented 'Hogwarts'.....you cannot prove that 'God' was an invention, you can believe it to be so, but unlike 'Hogwarts' you can't ask the author (or even attribute the concept to an author) of 'God' to find out.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Do you apply this logic to everything you don't know? I believe in God because I don't understand X ergo X was the result of a higher power, namely God.
I mean, that's what you're saying. You say "I don't believe something came from nothing" (of course it didn't, no one is trying to say that something came from nothing) but what you really mean is "I don't understand what they're talking about".
Or, perhaps "Because they haven't found what preceeded the universe, I'm going to think it was this God I made up until they do".
Last edited:
Exactly my point for why the statement is an extra cherry on top of the failcake. That line is always used by theists as a counter to evolution, when it isnt even what evolution states.
So middle earth, frodo and gandalf the gray must all be real too because we cant ask the author whether they were or not.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Well, you're assuming that asking the author would be sufficient proof to satisfy the question
(
)Why? Because he was right on that one aspect.....?
Read the edit maybe. Why is it that you always criticize and debate with anything that I write that you perceive to be wrong, but you never debate any of your beliefs or opinions with any theists whom you disagree with?
Well, you're assuming that asking the author would be sufficient proof to satisfy the question
So if the author for any book ever written is dead, whatever was written in that book must have been 100% real.
Last edited:
Well, you're assuming that asking the author would be sufficient proof to satisfy the question
As I said.....(as far as we can be)...
You could equally argue that objectively you cannot prove anything exists beyond your own mind.....
It dependes entirely on how far you want to take the concept of scepticism.
I disagree with all kinds of stuff Theists say....the most recent examples are in the 'tolerant Catholic Church' thread where I disagee with a wide range of opinions put forward by both Catholics and other Religious people, both about the nature and interpretation of Scripture and their stance toward Gay Marriage.....there is also a couple of threads in SC where I disagree vehemently with both Muslims and Christians....Muslims on their particular interpretations of the Quran and Hadith and Christians who ascribe to a Creationist and Loteral interpretation of their Faith through Scripture.
Your edit is too sweeping anyway....Using the word 'Theists' implies that everyone who believes in God is a Creationist...which is is simply not true.
Last edited:
Way to miss the point......
As I said, the author did not attribute any reality to it....this includes JRR Tolkien....you can just read the flycover where is states it is a work of fiction to assertain the intent and opinion of the author of the work.
Please give me your definition of Creationism.
Why, you can look it up if you wish.....I use the term Creationist in it's commonly used descriptive, whereby the subject holds a belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of all living things related in the Bible as opposed to Evolution.......
That is the common use of the term, especially on these forums.
No its definitely not. Not on this forum, and not commonly anywhere in the world. I wont even bother pointing out why not or giving you the correct definition on this one, because I know you are too stubborn to accept it.
I know what the real definition is, supported globally and academically in any such discussion on creationism, but I was asking you for yours because you never use real definitions of anything in your arguments.
Under the real definition of Creationism, just about every single Christian, and perhaps even Muslims judging by Muza's post would be classified as a Creationist.
Creationism is also not just limited to Christian belief, anyone of any religion can hold creationist beliefs.
Last edited:
well if that's your reason you may want to reconsider since we have proof of something from nothing ...