Does God exist? (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

And yes i know, it is the Chaos System, science have an idea about it, but cannot fully explan it. Is it an miracle then?

Complex systems we don't yet understand =/= violation of natural laws.

 

[Lukybear]

So for political convienience, and to fit in with your existing views and predjudices, you choose to believe the alternative hypothesis held by a minority of scientists, even though you admittedly can't possibly understand the systems and processes involved.

You must understand Graney, there is much evidence of Global Warming, but it still is a theory, not a law.

And btw youve just commited an ad homen

 

[impervious182]

So for political convienience, and to fit in with your existing views and predjudices, you choose to believe the alternative hypothesis held by a minority of scientists, even though you admittedly can't possibly understand the systems and processes involved.

No it's a politcal inconvenience to believe that anthropogenic climate change is not occuring, thanks to Al Gore. That's my whole point, people have vested interests in believing in global warming.

The observations don't fit the theory when it comes to climate change. The main player in the whole case for anthro. clim. change is the IPCC and they're models have proven incorrect, and quite a number of scientists whose names appear on the report, claim they do not agree with all of its findings.

There is a thread dedicated to this though, and I've explained my views there. Let's stick to religion here. The thread's long enough as it is, without other issues being simultaneously discussed.

 

[Enteebee]

Well, science cannot explain that if i flatter my hand, it may become a storm across the globe.

Yes, this would mean that according to science the following things are true. You fluttered your hand. A storm occurred somewhere.

There is no proof of causation so it'd be silly to suggest it, obviously it's within the realm of some theoretical probabilities... but I wouldn't believe that there was causation without the scientific evidence and neither would you imo. So under my personal epistemology I'd say that the causation between ur hand and the storm does not exist, until someone can prove to me that it does...

seems far more logical than what you're suggesting.

Of course it's possible that I'm wrong in suggesting that there is no causation, because it may be there and we're just unable to see it or at least haven't yet, but it makes far more sense imo to not believe it until there's evidence.

You must understand Graney, there is much evidence of Global Warming, but it still is a theory, not a law.

Are you a troll? Look up what a scientific law is...

 

[Lukybear]

HYPOCRISY IS THIS<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

Big

When you are biased towards one side God will seem probable.

And im in opinion that the Athiests have refuted his points adequately . (and come on for petes sake one of the main debaters for the theists side denies evolution)



This is in the op's thread and according to Big Bang there is t=0

Honestly, i suffer lack in faith sometimes, so you cannot call me a hypocrite. But my faith is strong, thats why i belive.

And thats rite, there is no Time before the big bang. Time by physics definition is the cause of space, it is the fourth dimension. SInce there is no space there wouldnt be time. However, there would still be a period... before that is not measured by time.

It is a difficult concept to grasp i know...

 

[tommykins]

You must understand Graney, there is much evidence of Global Warming, but it still is a theory, not a law.

And btw youve just commited an ad homen

Errrr....learn what a theory is in the scientific context

 

[Lukybear]

Are you a troll? Look up what a scientific law is...

The THEORY of evolution is a theory, the Law of Conservation of Matter is a Law....

And WHy must you refer to troll all the time... what does it even mean?

 

[impervious182]

Yes, this would mean that according to science the following things are true. You fluttered your hand. A storm occurred somewhere.

There is no proof of causation so it'd be silly to suggest it, obviously it's within the realm of some theoretical probabilities... but I wouldn't believe that there was causation without the scientific evidence and neither would you imo. So under my personal epistemology I'd say that the causation between ur hand and the storm does not exist, until someone can prove to me that it does...

seems far more logical than what you're suggesting.

If there were proof of causation, then science would be able to explain it. So this again, is a truism.

You're calling for a scientific explanation to what you admit that science can't explain.

I.e. asking for scientific proof that miracles exists, whilst at the same time claiming that, by definition, miracles are beyond scientific explanation.

 

[emytaylor164]

Honestly, i suffer lack in faith sometimes, so you cannot call me a hypocrite. But my faith is strong, thats why i belive.

And thats rite, there is no Time before the big bang. Time by physics definition is the cause of space, it is the fourth dimension. SInce there is no space there wouldnt be time. However, there would still be a period... before that is not measured by time.

It is a difficult concept to grasp i know...

he is saying that you are biased toward's God existing, which is hypocritical, you are critisising athiests for been biased towards not believing in God, when you are doing exactly the same thing

 

[impervious182]

Errrr....learn what a theory is in the scientific context

Yeah... another ad homen argument.

 

[tommykins]

If there were proof of causation, then science would be able to explain it. So this again, is a truism.

You're calling for a scientific explanation to what you admit that science can't explain.

I.e. asking for scientific proof that miracles exists, whilst at the same time claiming that, by definition, miracles are beyond scientific explanation.

If I were to drop a penny but it'd stay afloat in mid air and it is repeated, then that is more or less a miracle.

 

[Lukybear]

he is saying that you are biased toward's God existing, which is hypocritical, you are critisising athiests for been biased towards not believing in God, when you are doing exactly the same thing

I am not critcising, merely saying the truth... therefore i am not hypocrtical since it was only a statement...

And i did not say that i wasnt biased towards the existence of God.

 

[Graney]

No it's a politcal inconvenience to believe that anthropogenic climate change is not occuring, thanks to Al Gore. That's my whole point, people have vested interests in believing in global warming.

The vested interests argument always makes me lol.

Where do you think more vested interests would possibly lie, in promoting global warming or denying it?

A few scientists jobs vs. major changes to every industry and resource in the world... Who do you think the politicians are looking after foremost? Who do you think they receive more money from?

 

[tommykins]

Yeah... another ad homen argument.

How is it an ad hominem when he is asserting that a scientific theory is not 'true' because it isn't a law?

 

[Lukybear]

If I were to drop a penny but it'd stay afloat in mid air and it is repeated, then that is more or less a miracle.

LOL....
I would suppose that scientist would hypothesis that the Byron particle of Gravity was missing at that particular moment... or that the fabric of the unvierse was bend at that particular moment causeing the penny to not drop...

 

[nikolas]

Honestly, i suffer lack in faith sometimes, so you cannot call me a hypocrite. But my faith is strong, thats why i belive.

And thats rite, there is no Time before the big bang. Time by physics definition is the cause of space, it is the fourth dimension. SInce there is no space there wouldnt be time. However, there would still be a period... before that is not measured by time.

It is a difficult concept to grasp i know...

Whats, north of the north pole?

And he admitted he did'nt use t=0 for his argument.

I actually think the concept that there was no time at all more difficult to grasp but this is irrelevant.

 

[Enteebee]

If there were proof of causation, then science would be able to explain it. So this again, is a truism.

You're calling for a scientific explanation to what you admit that science can't explain.

I.e. asking for scientific proof that miracles exists, whilst at the same time claiming that, by definition, miracles are beyond scientific explanation.

Well no, it's not exactly a truism because it's possible there is an explanation science may one day have the answer to, but simply doesn't yet.

My argument would go further than to simply point out that miracles etc do not exist scientifically. I would challenge people to explain to me, how your belief in God is any more justified than that in magical pixies, if you want to believe in things without scientific evidence.

 

[tommykins]

LOL....
I would suppose that scientist would hypothesis that the Byron particle of Gravity was missing at that particular moment... or that the fabric of the unvierse was bend at that particular moment causeing the penny to not drop...

Then we test those and once we've ran out of ideas, it becomes a miracle.

Scientific method buddy, explore all possible explanations and you're BOUND to hit into the correct one.

 

[Lukybear]

How is it an ad hominem when he is asserting that a scientific theory is not 'true' because it isn't a law?

He asserted that the arguer who possed the arguement was less intelligent...

 

[nikolas]

You must understand Graney, there is much evidence of Global Warming, but it still is a theory, not a law.

And btw youve just commited an ad homen

You have shown ignorance yet again.