Ritard_
Banned
i would very much like to read this research
I would love to see you try to work out how the sun undergoes fusion to form helium from hydrogen with a pointy stick and some rope.No, actually. What is logical is to include in scientific theory and thought what is quantifiable and provable. If you want to inject God into whatever science you please because you think it would be a nice idea or you don't actually understand it, then fine, but do not try and pass it off as scientifically valid because you won't get away with it.
Yeah - one shows us the light while the other keeps us in the dark.tl;dr yes religion is not science, both have different functions.
There will probably never be hard evidence for a god/gods. I can say that there is an invisible purple unicorn next to me. There is no way to know if the aforementioned invisible unicorn is real or not. But stating that it is real just because science can't disprove it is completely illogical and ridiculous.The only thing science doesn't really explain is whether there is a god/gods or not. By that I don't mean you think the idea of a god is stupid, I mean hard evidence.
We do not need religion for moral guidance.The idea of religion nowadays is not to explain the exact workings of the world, but to provide moral guidance using metaphors and stuff like that.
Yes because you are much more educated and well respected in the academic community then bryson. Since you have 3 weeks of undergrand physics under your belt, why not start writing books? Since your so well educated and versed in science and all.yes, that is the extract I am using, yes bryson concludes differently but really, bryson doesn't understand what he is writing about, he writes what he is told...he is good with travel stuff but this really is not his fortay...all he is doing is translating jargon into laymans terms.....the point is, the numbers are still there and I reach a different conclusion to bryson
I can prove there isn't an invisible purple unicorn beside you...two reasons...There will probably never be hard evidence for a god/gods. I can say that there is an invisible purple unicorn next to me. There is no way to know if the aforementioned invisible unicorn is real or not. But stating that it is real just because science can't disprove it is completely illogical and ridiculous.
Based on what scientific laws?I can prove there isn't an invisible purple unicorn beside you...two reasons...
1. it is physically impossible to be both purple and invisible, they are mutually exclusive.
2. It's not insubstantial so i should be able to touch it
the law that anything with significant mass can be weighed and touched
Then why can't i touch god?the law that anything with significant mass can be weighed and touched
Says the idiot.Wow, I'm surprised the level of unintelligence on this forum, especially considering it's essentially an education site. Education obviously used loosely at this point.
So when you are pissed off vaugley at someone who may have made a mistake (I apologise, I'm not exactly a scientist)
you obviously have no more intelligent things to say than "Fuck off" or "Fuck you". Fuck is obviously the extent of your vocabulary,
yeah go way you faggleso I"m going to bow out of this thread.
I"m fine with my faith and the hope I have, thankyou.