Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
SW-User Best Comment
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@GodSpeed63 That's almost true Godspeed. As I said in one of my other posts, you just keep to the essentials. That we have to trust the sciptures and that no proof is nescessary to do so.

What I do find remarkable tough is that you from time to time start discussions like this one. That reads: "Science really does point to God.".
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Kwek00 [quote]That we have to trust the Scriptures and that no proof is necessary to do so. [/quote]

That is very true. I'm learning that.

[quote]"Science really does point to God.".[/quote]

It is true, science really does point to God being that God created the heavens and the earth.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Of course science points to God. Science doesn't prove God absolutely but then it doesn't prove anything absolutely@GodSpeed63

Wendy33 · F
Quite the opposite. The scientific method points to inconclusive results. That's very different from a peer reviewed conclusion. I could go on, but I have a feeling little I could say will change anyone's mind. Do consider your source here. FOX news is a known conservative program who's audience is more likely to be religious. They will play things directed at that audience. Preaching to the choir if you will.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 You're [i]incredibly[/i] retarded if you think that. Spectacularly.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul you are right text books show a flat Earth and I can tell your personality by the lumps on your head. Text books have a best before date. Yours has expired.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Show me a reputable 40 year old textbook that shows a flat Earth.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Simply by accepting the scientific method you are accepting a rational universe therefore a rational mind behind it. Unless you are one of those irrational people who believes blind chance creates rationality
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955
How can we know that "yahweh" is a "fact"? What evidence do you have of his excistence? And how valid is that evidence (since it ussually goes back to the bible, and historical scholars have a real problem seeing the bible as a valid dataset to base your opinion on).

If you can't prove "yahweh" to be an objective fact? Then it's just an hypothesis. And if it's just an hypothesis, then why would it be more rational to trust something we have 0 proof off.

For as far as I read up on the toppic in the last several days, just because of this conversation. For as far as I can find you are correct questioning the fact how life gets started. What Janine calls "abiogenesis" or the way the process started, is a field that is open for discussion. For as far as I found, there is no correct answer to it. But you fall in the same error that you made earlier. By attacking 1 point in the theory that is still under investigation, you dismiss everything else. It's all or nothing for you, because you talk from a religious vieuwpoint. But science doesn't claim to have all the truths like a dogmatic mindset, and it doesnt point to simple truths like the creation of a "God" to solve every question out there. It's not because the origin of life is not yet discovered, that "evolution" as a theory fails. Neither does it make science into a cult, neither does it make science obsolote. That's just the nirvana fallacy you keep falling into, cause you can't imagine yourself to be wrong.
Sharon · F
@Kwek00 [quote]By attacking 1 point in the theory that is still under investigation, you dismiss everything else. [/quote]

Abiogenesis isn't even part of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. It just shows how little Joe knows about the subject. Too Funny! ;)
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Sharon

I'm just glad that we kinda established that his source is not "The Bible".
That kinda saves us from going trough the effort of pointing out "the bible" as a "valid source" to base positive claims on.

It cleared up something... but of course now it leaves me wondering where all this actually comes from. Of course I got pointed to my task of proving him wrong and doing my own research. Life is super easy if you are free from the burden of proof, you can practically say annything you wish and when people ask you where you get it from, you just call them stupid, lazy, idiotic, ... .

[image deleted][image deleted]
But I'm sorry that I framed him wrong. I thought his dataset was the bible. But apperently someone out there used terms from the bible to create a more credible idea about how things all work out. It's totally diffrent, and I just didn't know. I was totally confused, and totally ignorant of the fact that people use terms for the bible (not really original, but it has a certain appeal in certain circles).
JesusChrist · 100+, M
Yay! I'm back! It's my Second coming! But what the hell is this? Some new Idol I have to contend with, one among many. Christians have a number of Idols and a number of creative ways of denying to themselves that they're idol worshipping. But their biggest Idol is one they needn't even take a single step to find, that is if they could even remove the beam from their eyes!
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@Sharon If only!!
Speedyman · 70-79, M
The funny farm is in your head lady. That is if there is anything in it at all apart from hate and bile. @Sharon
Sharon · F
@Speedyman I expect my comment was too cryptic for you to understand. Never mind, maybe your carer can explain it to you.
masterofyou · 70-79, M
You can't prove it.... Christian Faith is a a religion not a scientific fact... I'm a believer to but you can't prove what you believe right now....
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Sharon [quote]Your silly imaginary friend of course.[/quote]

I don't have a silly imaginary friend. Again, you didn't my question.
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]I don't have a silly imaginary friend.[/quote]
Really? Well you keep banging on about it.

I have answered your question, it's not my fault if you missed it or didn't understand it.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Sharon [quote]Really?[/quote]

Really, really
jomsim · 26-30, M
You can't write a book and say something must be true because it's in the book. And, worse, pretend that science agrees.
CookieLuvsBunny · 31-35, F
@suzie1960 @Sharon
Apollo has flaming arrows of truth. Plus a beautiful mountaintop chalet
Pfuzylogic · M
Sharon · F
@CookieLuvsBunny That's the truth, sister. Their silly Yahoo god thing is no match for Him.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it takes intelligence to recognize it. The non intelligent believe in dumb luck.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ The Chez Nous motel is open for business if you and the NZ nutbar want to tongue bath each other again.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, you are a sad cheap imitation of a human.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ And you are a simple atheist. (fool).
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Sharon · F
@BiblicalWarrior Try telling your fellow christians that, some of them seem to be unaware of that idea.

Your "truth" isn't necessarily the actual truth either. A lot of what christians have claimed to be "the truth" has been proven wrong. You should make it clear it's just your (perhaps honestly held) belief rather than arrogantly claim it's proven, indisputable fact as some do.
BiblicalWarrior · 51-55, M
@Sharon The reason why most, as I call them, Churchians, are unaware of the foundations of their beliefs is because instead of reading and studying the Bible for themselves, they would rather just sit idle in the pews and let the pastor/priest/minister tell them what it says. Those who are genuine Christians, who study the Bible for themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are fully aware that the first Christians, and, in fact, Christ Himself, were all Jewish.
Sharon · F
@BiblicalWarrior Many of those the study the bible for themselves are now Atheists.
Does science point to god?
One [b]Author[/b] thinks it does.😏👍


But saying that science points to god is a misrepresentation of the situation.

All it shows is that the universe is complex and we're discovering that complexity and this gives Metaxis an excuse to trot out the logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity.

Question:

Why are you happy to accept science when it seems to confirm your beliefs but reject it when it doesn't?
The conclusions are arrived at in the same way using the scientific method.

That's a little self-serving, don't you think?
Either science is a trustworthy tool or it is not.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman "I'm the King of England"
Now that you say it, you sound medieval.
Are you sure you are not the King of Flat Earth, instead?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
exactly there's much chance of me being a mediaeval king and 1000 years old as you being a scientific researcher@CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Whatever.
But, curiously, still stands that what I say is in line with what the scientific community says.
And that your arguments are in line with the ones of the Scholastic theologists.
redredred · M
I asked you a simple, direct question. Which of the forty thousand gods humans have worshipped is science pointing to and how do you know its that god?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I can assure you while you I do nothing of the kind! Why should I fulminate when someone like you questions my beliefs? Ut amuses me that you troll your way on to a site like this making ignorant comments and think you are putting people right. Sorry mate, we don't fulminate at people like you who know nothing @Entwistle
Entwistle · 56-60, M
@Speedyman Glad to hear it!
Speedyman · 70-79, M
😄😄😄@Entwistle
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
[image deleted]
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Harriet03 [quote]I certainly do. Your dangerous/delusional![/quote]

You certainly don't. You don't have authority over my life, only God, Yahweh, does.
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@GodSpeed63 Take responsibility!!
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Harriet03 [quote]Take responsibility!![/quote]

Just because Yahweh has authority over my life doesn't mean that I don't take responsibility for my actions. BTW, He has authority over your life as well, like it or not.
I believe in God, maybe not as an old man sitting up in the sky, looking at us, but as a supernatural energy that exists in everything and is contained of all... A whole Devine...

But the point is the function of sciense is not to prove anything but to bring facts to disprove a theory ...
KiwiBird · 36-40, F
@Pfuzylogic I agree with your last post...I didn't say anything about the picture looking like anyone let alone God. I have seen the painting in person...and it doesn't do that much for me.
KiwiBird · 36-40, F
@Pfuzylogic @Soossie Anyway folks, it's midnight here....I am off to dreamland. Nite all.
Pfuzylogic · M
@KiwiBird
Have a good night! 😊
cycleman · 61-69, M
what a load of BS!
BiblicalWarrior · 51-55, M
@GodSpeed63 The Bible clearly teaches in Genesis that human beings do not HAVE souls, we ARE souls
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@BiblicalWarrior ass souls!!
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Harriet03 [quote]ass souls!![/quote]

Tell me something, how far did you get in school, Harriet?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Oh well...
I finally got it!!!!
What is left is to choose between to competing views.

Hippy one.
He says, read it, that all data collected by scientists are corrupted on purpose.
So, to hell with scientists!
BUT the other guys he knows HAVE collected good reliable honest data.
The problem is that, somehow, they left them somewhere and can´t remember their location.
Or, may be, were stolen by the bad guys, the evil scientists.
Don´t worry, hippy. I´ll wait. Bring also some popcorn.

Speedy one.
That is different.
A more traditional one based on a serious medieval standard.
Scientist MAY have good data.
And know their boring math.
But they don´t know a shit on how to explain them.
Nor should be allowed to at risk to be sent early to bed (a pitty we can´t burn them like in the good ole times).
No, no.
It should work like this:
Archeologist say that have not found traces of telephone wiring in Yucatan.
Now it´s the turn of the philosopher / preacher to say:
Mayas used celular phones!
Amen bro!

I hope that Speedy and Hippy agree with something in common.
Else, my friends, we are damned.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 No hippie, I just thought there was a bit more to what you were saying than "I'm an inquisitive and open-minded person with a wide skillset who works well with others" - because that simply means you're even more delusional than I realized 😂
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul Other than the point on top of you head you seem to have no point posting on this thread.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Bwahahaha oh wow you really did see yourself in their little "fox" description 😂

Awwwww
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
It certainly makes the case for design over evolution. Evolution is a nonstarter that even its founder (Darwin) would now be forced to admit is wrong. After 160 years of frantic searching there still are no transition fossils. All the fossils we fin are fully developed distinct species.
@newjaninev2 These people are completely brainwashed and no amount of discussion can change their minds. All we can do is vote them out of office.

What's hilarious is how Donald Trump embodies the polar opposite of everything Jesus stood for, and he's supported by 80% of Evangelicals. I've heard Christianity in the U.S. described as an "afterglow;" I wouldn't go that far, but the noisiest version has definitely degenerated into political tribalism, favoring oppression of LGBT, opposition to abortion, brutalization of Latin American refugees, absolute and uncritical support of Israel, fetishization of firearms, drooling reverence for the police and military, and total, unquestioning support for Donald Trump.

That's not to say there aren't serious and thoughtful Christians who strive to emulate Jesus and follow his teachings; Pete Buttigieg would be a good example of this. And of course, he is bitterly hated by the hippyjoe variety.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@CharlieZ Ah yes, H2S... poisonous, corrosive, and flammable
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 In lighter concentrations, it smell like..his opinions.
What is the use of this?? Honestly, what is the point in proving that you are right, and moreover, what is the point in trying to change what makes others happy inside??

Why can't we accept each other with different beliefs??

I am not against progressive debating, but this useless discussion has been going on for centuries, and there is no point in it... or there is no use in the end result anyway??

If I am happy with my own whole Devine, why would anyone want to supposedly educate me, to take that happiness away from me...

Or for those scientists who have proven evolution, or not, to put their foot down just to take the happiness of those believers away from them...

Science's function is not to prove anything... science function is to bring facts to disprove the older theories...
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Soossie Well, if you invoke the word "justice" even if it's outside the limited experience and knowledge... I would still consider "justice" to look a little bit like "justice". Else we are talking about something that is so far from "justice" that using "justice" might be an unreasonable thing to do?

Your english is doing just fine :) , I'm not english, and my english is limited too. Go for it! I don't expect everyone to learn dutch and you can't expect everyone to learn farsi. So it's a-okay.

See, here does the word pop up. You "believe", and because of your believe you adjust your behavior accordingly. Which is perfectly fine. But the moment your believe lays a claim on what we can measure, then your believe becomes a fantasy because it's not supported by objective truths. And I don't really share or find comfort in the "order of the universe", and if that thing excists, then I question it's morality if it is able to hold anny. Could just be a wild thing, like a lion. When the lion eats the mother of a baby deer, it just feeds it's hunger. It's not looking at morality.

Instead of adopting a world vieuw that believes that some "order of things" that we have no proof of does things out of nescessity? Maybe it's better to look at it in another way. That certain things happen by chance. That chance shouldn't be admired or shouldn't be feared, that it just happens. That figures of speech like: "a blind person being born in this world is an injustice" have had a long history behind them, but that with newer ways of looking at objective reality these figures of speech don't make anny sense annymore. That being born blind neither is fair or unfair, neither good or bad, neither just or injustice, but just a natural fact of life. It's "neutral" , but how we deal with blind people in society is not "neutral" that can be judged.
basilfawlty89 · 31-35, M
@Soossie to a large extent you're right. While the universe may seem chaotic, it does have laws it works on. There are objective facts on how the universe operates and things such as energy conservation.
Thank you Basil.... it is very hard for me to explain, but what you said is part of what I really wanted to say... @basilfawlty89
redredred · M
Which of the 40,000 gods humans have worshipped does it point to and how do you know it's that god?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Amazing that you can write so many words and say nothing@Kwek00
BiblicalWarrior · 51-55, M
@redredred The Hindus alone have over 3 million gods. Where did you get the number 40,000?
redredred · M
@BiblicalWarrior Most of those are avatars of the three main gods
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
Who says a life-sustaining Earth 'just happened’?

It happened (obviously), so requires no faith whatsoever. There's no need for any such pretence, because it’s demonstrably true.

Is there anything that suggests it could not have happened? Well, there are at least 150 billion stars in our average-sized galaxy (that’s 150,000,000,000 stars), and we can see at least 200 billion other galaxies in the observable universe (that’s 200,000,000,000 galaxies).

It’s too soon to give a reliable number of exoplanets per star, but even a [i]conservative[/i] guess of two immediately results in a staggering number of planets. Rather than being impossible, it’s actually [b]inevitable[/b] that some planet would eventually develop life (which is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of darwinian evolution).

There are two options other than ‘it happened’.

One option is that life didn’t happen, and that there is no life on Earth.

The other option is that some magical entity created all this just so it could tell me not to wear mixed fabrics... although that seems rather like overkill (but hey, apparently the magical entity is into overkill).

Notice that this Eric Metaxas muppet, when questioned about creationism, immediately starts taking about the origin of the universe, and then just as quickly skips away to ‘fine-tuning’ .
In fact, the universe is not 'finely-tuned’ for life. If things were different, then they wouldn’t be the same... that’s hardly deep and meaningful!

I’m surprised that Metaxas refers to Hitchens.

Let’s see what Hitchens had to say about ‘fine-tuning’, shall we?

Hitches was debating Davis Wolpe some years ago. Wolpe challenged Hitchens, saying, "The odds that the universe would actually be constituted are .0000 to the billion power, because all these various astronomical constants have to be exactly right, balanced on a knife edge in order for there to be a world. So that's the first piece of evidence that the world knew we were coming."

Unimpressed, Hitch responds,

"Now to this knife edge point, why are people so impressed that it so nearly didn't happen? Some designer. I might mention on the knife edge point, knife edge is exactly the right metaphor as it turns out, just in the little far off suburban slum of our tiny solar system—that's a detail in the cosmos—just the one we know, we know the following: that of the other planets, all of them are either much too hot or much too cold to support any kind of life at all. If they ever did they don't any longer and will never do so again. And that is true of very large tracts of our own planet. They're either the too hot or too cold and it's on a climatic knife edge as it is and is waiting for the Sun to swell up into a red dwarf, boil the oceans, and have done with the whole business, and we even know roughly the date on which that will occur. That's just in our suburb; it's in our hood. So we may have a lot of a little bit of something now but there's a great deal of nothingness headed our way. Some design, huh?"

He continues, showing the absurdity of thinking the whole of the cosmos, including all of its mass extinctions, was all a preparation for us.

“It were waiting for us? It was waiting for us to occur? For you and me to arrive? Well, 98.9% of every species has ever been on earth has already become extinct. So if there's a creator or designer (and I can't prove there isn’t) who wanted that? This designer must be either very capricious, very cruel, very incompetent, or very indifferent. [b]Grant him and you must grant all that[/b]. "
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 How can you be sure? Were you there? Did you witness it? Funny how you and your kindred spirits keep changing your story. A month ago you denied abiogenisis now you are acclaiming abiogenesis. Well if the truth be told I don't believe in a magical entity like you do. You who believe in magic mud are the superstitious amongst us. You have a startless beginning and a meaningless end. The whole middle of your existence is pretty useless too. Causeless causation is a pretty clueless point to start at and your philosophy simply becomes more and more ridiculous as it goes along. Doesn't explain a thing but it keeps the stupid happy. Too Funny. What a clueless troll.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 If you bothered reading what people write to you, you’d notice that I wrote:

I don’t know how abiogenesis occurred... [b]and nor do you[/b].

No claims of certainty... unlike you

The only one of us who has denied abiogenesis is you (according to you, there is no life on Earth!)
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 So either it was an accident. (you) or it was designed and given life by a Loving Creator (me). Your theory is so much nonsense it isn't worth reading what supporters of it have to say. Statistically it can not happen by accident. Way too complex. With some thing we call life which evolution has no idea where it even came from. It certainly is more than a bunch of connected proteins. Join them all together and you still don't have life. Witness a dead cell.
ImKelsey · 26-30, F
Okay, I watched the video, and here's my analysis:

In his quest for wealth through proselytizing he has shown his willingness to false portray science and corrupt reason. His argument is basically a take on intelligent design: focused on bashing the ability of chance and nature to do the same things as God might. Perhaps the worst oversight he makes is failing to mention that the 'right' conditions for a planet represent a range and that this range is regularly fallen into by many planets outside our solar system.

This guy should be ashamed of misinforming people.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@ImKelsey 👏
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@ImKelsey [quote]In his quest for wealth through proselytizing he has shown his willingness to false portray science and corrupt reason.[/quote]

How so?

[quote]His argument is basically a take on intelligent design:[/quote]

Yes, that's the truth. Intelligent Design did take place by an Intelligent Designer.
ImKelsey · 26-30, F
@GodSpeed63 He's making money from a book and videos that contain lies.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
What a weak minded idiot.

What science is discovering is that life on Earth is a statistical anomaly, that the odds for sustained life are so amazingly low, that we are learning how very much alone in the universe we are.

And that god cannot protect us from ourselves.

Ironic that the religious folks who support Trump and others like him who deny climate change are the ones who are hoping that god will save us.

Ain’t gonna happen my friend.

Next up; how lottery winners are determined by the sky man.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
I have literally studied 4 of the worlds most common religions.

What you know about me son is not a lot.

@hippyjoe1955
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@JoeyFoxx Ha ha ha. Sure you have. You took a course in school. That is very very different from studying. Your ignorance is on full display.
JoeyFoxx · 51-55, M
I took no courses. I purchased books and studied them myself.

I have spoken to quite a few religious leaders in the religions I studied.

I do enjoy the assumptions you make about me. It demonstrates your bias. @hippyjoe1955
Nature3 · 56-60, M
Sorry to break it to you, it does not. This god you speak of is no more distinguishable than a highly advanced alien race in an alternate parallel universe that has the power to create universes....ours. Your god theory has no more evidence behind it that can be verified and tested repeatedly than the alien idea. Furthermore, the supernatural realm has no way of being detected or observed with any degree of certainty. You and the science illiterate Fox News idiots do not know science. It's painfully obvious.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Speedyman (or whatever it is you’re trying to ignore)
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Just pedantic boring fundamentalist stuff of a fundamentalist atheist. Same old dreary non-arguments@newjaninev2
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Speedyman Really? Tell me, what are the precepts and tenets of ‘fundamental' atheism?

or is it unbearably pedantic of me to require you to give meaning to your words?
SW-User
Okay, since this post is apparently going to keep showing up in my feed until the end of time, let me lay down the truth and then everyone can go back to their lives.

You can't apply science to anything you can't measure. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand anything whatsoever about science and is talking shit and needs to shut up about that. Since you can't measure God, science is unable to say anything on the subject. Done, end of story.

Anyone who hasn't taken a predicate calculus class doesn't understand anything about logic and needs to shut up about that.

Anyone who hasn't taken a quantum mechanics class doesn't understand anything about how the observable universe works and needs to shut up about that.

Just shut the fuck up about shit you don't understand. And for heaven's sake, stop misusing statistics.

Does science point to God? No, but it doesn't point away either. And that's the final word. I'm blocking anyone who replies to this comment because there's no arguing with it. If you reply with an ad hominem, your brain is misaligned and you should get it fixed.

[c=#BF0000]Disclaimer: I AM NOT AN ATHEIST[/c]
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 No, GodSpeed, not like those.

Do you have some familiarity with what the publication of the papers of a scientific research look like? Or, perhaps, a scientific research based book?

The problem is not really the media.
But a talk rarely if ever can cover what is needed to expose the steps to build a scientific theory, not even to give an accout of a more specific research.
Talks are meant to widely expose and debate previously well formulated and documented stuff.

As an example, the historical Solvay conference was called to debate what then was a new branch of Phisics.
But they did so, after the first two of the nine branches of Quantum Physics were already seriously formulated. And not as a replacement of those formulations.

Can you, or hippy, or...whoever give us access (links, titles, authors) of the source scientific publications?
Besides critics to other theories, don´t seem to exist.
Behe´s books critic Evolution. Right or wrong in it´s critics, do they build an integral alternative theory? They don´t.
Dembski´s works tried to show that Evolution was impossible in an extense math corpus.
His math was found and proved technically wrong in mathematical terms, besides it´s purposes and with independence of them.
But beyond that failure, that was an intent of critics, never intented to be (nor could) the math support, the math formulation of an alternative theory.
What´s left?
Habeas Corpus, please.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ [quote]Do you have some familiarity with what the publication of the papers of a scientific research look like? Or, perhaps, a scientific research based book?[/quote]

Science is not the problem. Scientists can do all the research they want but it's their conclusions that bother me because they can't accurately interpret the results of their findings.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Each solid scientific theory haves various facets.
The data (experimental and or observational) research and it´s procesing / modelling.
The descriptive formulation, frequently expresed as a mathematical formulation.
The conceptual explanatory exposition related to the causal basis of what was found.

You can agree or dissagree on each specific case. That´s nothing new in scientific practice but a common case.

Even so, there is something long ago (about 400 years) left as residuals of obscurantism.
The "save the appearances" view.
What was it?
Researchers were "free" to research the external mechanics of the observable phenomena.
But the meaning of them? Ohhh no!
That interpretation and meaning was in hands of the Church and it´s "intellectuals", philosophers and authorities.
Or no "Imprimatur".

Speed, fortunately we left that bulshit behind.
Science have no need to ask for permission for doing it´s own work.
That, you like it or not, intrinsically includes to explain.

The videos you posted, so if right or wrong in the opinions they expose, have not the scope, structure nor the data support of a research result.
They may even be good, but they are definetly not enough.
Bring, please, serious and enough scientific material.
No need (nor would be posible) to post it complete.
Just the links or titles of the scientific publications. Systematic and data backed ones.

Do it, please.
If you ignore the science part entirely and start making things up, sure.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Kwek00 Do some research.
Pherick · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Come on hipster, you should know how this works, you brought up something, you then get to defend it, its debate 101. Surely well-taught scientist like yourself knows that.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@hippyjoe1955 Another positive claim without a source?

When it comes to society... I don't think that my lack of knowledge is the problem. It's more the abundance of knowledge that you have that creates friction in society 😅. Just look at your behavior in this thread alone. The first thing you had did was attack someone, telling them they are unqualified, talking down to them, without EVER proving your point. That's how smart you are Joe. Own it!
SW-User
On a side note, I observe things such as the Crotalaria Cunninghamii. Flowers that look incredibly identical to hummingbirds. This marvelous plant isn't chance and probabilities but rather the product of an infinite mind; A creator. I am in utter and constant astonishment of his great works and creations.

newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@SW-User So, I take it you have no more questions
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CookieLuvsBunny Your point being what?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@SW-User [quote]Thank you for being a good example to follow.[/quote]

Jesus is the good example. I'm just a messenger boy but thank you for the compliment. I've had plenty of practice on these guys.
EvilFairy · 18-21, F
but which god ? all hail odin
Sharon · F
@EvilFairy [quote]he doesn't even have a name.[/quote]
They call it "Yahoo" or something like that.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@EvilFairy @Sharon [quote][/quote]

Do you two enjoy showing your ignorance off? The Lord God has a name. Which one would you like to hear? Yahweh is only one of them.
EvilFairy · 18-21, F
@GodSpeed63 [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uGw-UXXsXs]
Hmmmm...the problem with this report is that Mr. Metaxas doesn't understand information he heard/read/was told about which makes the real point he ought to be making...

He says that the special conditions for a _planet_ to have life in this universe are far more special than we once thought, which is wrong, AFAIK.

The REAL point is that the particular set of parameters which DO exist in THIS universe--and which allow for enough long-term stability for life to not only form/emerge, but also long enough for intelligent[ish...😉] life to arise and even travel into.and observe space in such a way as to try to investigate comological questions--are seemingly very unlikely, from one point of view which has taken hold of the scientific imagination of our era.

The fact is that reality is very well explained by our mathematical models of it, informed by physics and our investigations of natural phenomena. The math is so real that numbers which fall out of, e.g., solving for the energy levels of hydrogenic [1-electron] atoms end up being real "quantum numbers", and all manner of other mathematical info also is validated in reality.

So some ppl have gotten really excited about the idea of a "multi-verse", not in the Marvel Cinematic Universe sense, but in the "honest-to-God, we REALLY think this might be the case" sense...

It starts with quantum-based notions but then generalizes to the fact that we have a set of parameters--the speed of light in a vacuum, Planck's constant, etc.--which effectively describe our Universe, and so, if altered, would describe different Universes... If these parameters are able to vary, then being a set which results in us isn't a surprise for our given Universe, but it makes our given Universe _very_ special, since most arbitrary values of the parameters simply won't allow for life to emerge, etc.

THAT is the point he SHOULD have made. His inability to understand what he read/saw/was told really calls into question his legitimacy regarding any "science" on which he reports.

It would be surprising if one could NOT find at least one author with such an opinion, regardless of it being based in fact or misunderstood fact.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ [quote]Because it is based in something notoriously nonexistent.[/quote]

Are you saying that God's intelligence is nonexistent?
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ You missed the memo? Must be the lounge brandy. Can't be the fact you have a closed mind and minimal intellect.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 "You are not even willing to talk about it."
As is repeated to boring, your questions are nothing more tan gateaways to let you avoid answering the ones previously made to you.
I will not concede you such lame excuse.

You have some practice in (only) talking.
But as that haves no factual foundations, you are not good enough deflecting the debate.

Answer (if you know how and if SOMEONE knows, which I doubt) where are the contributions to Science that you (your words and no one´s else) claim there are from those faith based institutions?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 No.

Of course, YouTube pamphets instead of research papers and asociated systematic factual data do not count as Science.
The application of only individual experstise, even if contingently good and marginally science based, do not count as Science.
Some tech inventions, medical precedures and things like, even if wonderful, if they not build scientific theories are not enough to be Science.
Nothing based in not detectable a priori entities is in the Science scope and object.
Cartesian (and the Sophists) use of "Pure Reason" is NOT Science.

You never provided something else.

Do it, please.
It is only when we kneel at the cross, that we are able to see where love and mercy meet. Jesus’s disciples died for what they believed in. They were there when Jesus was nailed to the cross. They were eye witnesses to His resurrection, praise God!! Many a believer, even into this age, has done the same, but not in vain. Time will show that. As we always say....To them which believe, no explanation is necessary; to them which believe not, no explanation is possible.
Yes I did. Nobody to judge me. Superstition means believing in things we can’t prove. It also means being held captive by fears and anxieties that we can’t control or do anything about. The Bible, however, warns us not to give in to superstitious habits or fears, but to put our trust in the living God.

Superstition and faith in the living God, are not the same thing, in spite of what you say. In fact, they are exact opposites. God is real—and the evidence for His existence is all around us.

@redredred
@GodSpeed63 I agree, brother.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@LadyGrace [quote]Superstition means believing in things we can’t prove. It also means being held captive by fears and anxieties that we can’t control or do anything about. The Bible, however, warns us not to give in to superstitious habits or fears, but to put our trust in the living God.[/quote]

Amen sister, amen! Thank you for sharing that.
I would just like to congratulate you on spinning a thread out into over 5000 replies simply by repeating that god is real and you can't prove he isn't!
Amazing lol
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Pikachu You assume he’s playing...
@newjaninev2

lol i assume nothing at this point😉
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu @newjaninev2 [quote]I assume nothing at this point[/quote]

Avoiding questions again?
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
I am afraid not.. but no matter what anyone says, however much they point out the horrendous and glaring holes in your *evidence* you won't even consider it..
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Considering the fact there are tremendous holes in the evidence for atheism it is incredible how many people actually believe in it on here. But then gullible people believe anything@Adaydreambeliever
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 Reproductive fitness (with consequent furtherance of specific alleles) refers to [i]specific characteristics[/i], not some abstract and unknown generality, and so can be tested against the real world.

There is nothing tautological about genetic survival of alleles for the longest fur, longest tail feathers, or strongest hind legs, and indeed the alleles may hinder genetic survival within future environments (which, as you know, are constantly changing)
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@hippyjoe1955 Apologies, but your last comment was unintelligible.

Perhaps if you reworded it and added some clarity...
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@newjaninev2 Janine,
The Universe seem to be intelligible.
But Hippy is an exception.
PlumBerries · 31-35, F
😂 [c=#7700B2]total B.S[/c]
PlumBerries · 31-35, F
[c=#7700B2]haha not going to work.. I am out. I will go focus my time on more interesting fairy tales [/c]
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@PlumBerries I know you like all members of scientism are closed minded uneducated oafs. Have a nice life.
PlumBerries · 31-35, F
👍️
Wraithorn · 51-55, M
This post has been extremely interesting and entertaining. Godspeed63, you deserve lots of kudos for starting such a mother of a discussion. Well done !
DunDunDun · 22-25, F
@Carazaa Yeah we should we be pretty ashamed of ourselves purely for existing shouldn't we lol
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@DunDunDun [quote]Yeah we should we be pretty ashamed of ourselves purely for existing shouldn't we[/quote]

We love because He first loved us, we live because He, the one true God, breathed life into us.
DunDunDun · 22-25, F
@GodSpeed63 okay lol
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Sorry, there were not TWO solutions to this debate (Speedy and Hippy) but THREE!
I don´t remember the name of the genius that proposed the third one.
According to him:
Is not ONLY that all scientists lie (Hippy said).
Is NOT that they don´t lie on purpose but are fools about explanation (Speedy said)

Nooooo, no! The genius is more creative.
In his though, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, James Watson and Francis Crick were Satanists!!!!

Please, call the Holly Inquisition or, if not found, the KKK
We´ll burn them all, evil scientists!
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 As always, you have no way out from the failure of your arguments than to make peronal focused assertions. Too bad.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ You don't know what a false dichotomy is or do you just fail to see it in your thinking?
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 I know enough what a false dichotomy is.
I also know that you avoid to focus on the content of what is said and go on focussing on who said it.
DunDunDun · 22-25, F
It really doesn't tho
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@GodSpeed63 So Jesus should not have called hypocrites hypocrites? Jesus shouldn't have compared non believers to dogs and swine?
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]So Jesus should not have called hypocrites hypocrites? [/quote]

He named those religious people right because that's how they presented themselves but He never went further than that.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@GodSpeed63 Actually He did. He called money changers thieves as He chased them out of the Temple with a whip. Now let us stop the circular firing squad and start using our ammo on the enemy and not on our brothers. You don't like the way I express myself? I don't care. As St Paul said Romans 14:4 "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand." I don't answer to you and you have no place judging me. I do as I am led by the Spirit and I can only trust that you are doing the same.
karysma · 31-35, F
That is because God gave human beings scientific knowledge. Humans would have [c=#7700B2][b]Never[/b][/c] been able to do this all on their own
karysma · 31-35, F
@Harriet03 I could have died that day but I survived. I lost my ability to walk but found Him which is the greatest reward
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@karysma If you think that's a good deal, I'm happy for you.
Personally I Woudnt!
karysma · 31-35, F
@Harriet03 You probably would if you walked in my shoes trust me
JenKarl · 41-45, C
The god particle?
Sharon · F
@Speedyman Still waiting for you to say something that makes a bit of sense for once. How about addressing the points I made instead of just ignoring them hoping nobody will notice that you can't refute them.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
As you made no point whatsoever how can I refute them? When you say nothing that makes any sense so how can any intelligent person argue with nonsense?@Sharon
Sharon · F
@Speedyman Just ignoring the points made doesn't make them go away. You might not understand that but intelligent people do.
Budwick · 70-79, M
I'm glad 'science' is getting on board with God.

I think common sense has pointed to God.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Budwick ThreaD ?

I'm not an english speaker.
Budwick · 70-79, M
@Kwek00 [quote]I'm not an english speaker.[/quote]

Well, you do pretty good, with English not being your native language!

I'm glad no one has threatened you. And, that your local businesses are doing well.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Budwick Thanks and thanks

I have no local business, but no one threatened me.
And thanks for saying I'm handling myself. I have a small form of dyslexia too, I ussually edit my stuff just to filter out language mistakes I'm aware off. But I make several 😅 , not something I'm proud off. It's not easy being a native dutch speaker in a world where verry little people understand dutch. You have to learn french, german and english to keep the head above water where I live 😅
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
[b]"We must find out from results to causes because Nature, by it´s own, procceds from causes to results" - Leonardo da Vinci.[/b]
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@JustinOnTheRoad Just a thought, yes, a merely wrong one.

That expression is totally consistent with the worldview shown in his well known Notebooks.
And, as an expression of genius, an historical antecedent to what Science become to be.

Comment, please, the quote from Galileo.
Another satanist?
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@JustinOnTheRoad You are not mentioned in the Bible.
You are just a human deceiver.
texasborn89 · 31-35, M
Jesus is coming soon. he will judge the mockers and scoffers. one day every knee will bow before God.
You don’t give 2 fucks for who I am.@Carazaa
Carazaa · F
@Texasgurl I do too🤨 I wouldn't be here if I didn't.
🙄...spare me@Carazaa
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
That only works with delusional people I am afraid.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Harriet03 [quote]I can't believe there is so much debate about a myth! What's next, Santa or the tooth fairy?[/quote]

Yeah, the myth of evolution has become such a challenge.
Adaydreambeliever · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 bless your cotton socks.. are you still banging on about this? God told me you are an idiot and will be first against the wall come judgement day :P Seriously you are a bore of the highest magnitude.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Adaydreambeliever [quote]god told me you are an idiot[/quote]

I don't know what god your talking about, hunny, but my God, Yahweh, says different. I'll take His Word over yours any day.
It's a real shame that a polite discussion can't occur whenever it comes to religion. Obviously Bible bashers and extreme atheists believe that ONLY they are right, but agreeing to disagree really shouldn't be that difficult
Harriet03 · 41-45, F
@newjaninev2 That's religion for you!!! Batshit crazy.
Entwistle · 56-60, M
@hippyjoe1955 No evidence abounds about intelligent design. Not one iota of evidence for it exists.
JBird · F
@BeefySenpie you forgot Hinduvatas and Islamists too lol
Platinum · M
One day we will know...but I think it's better to believe he exists than believe there is nothing...the fact we are here and we are alive is proof to me that our life goes on forever...
Platinum · M
There is no proof there is a god and there is no proof these ain't a god...arguing is pointless, you believe or you don't , the good news for you is, God will forgive you for being a disbeliever, so you can't lose...@Sharon
Sharon · F
@Platinum That's just your belief. It's not one I share nor, it seems, do all christians. As there is no god, there's nothing to forgive so you're right, I can't lose. :)
Platinum · M
You just have....I'm not a Christian ...I don't go to church and I only pray when someone is ill ...whether it helps I don't know but it might.....answer me this , why don't you think there is a god or as I believe a higher being...explain please as you rule it out completely...I'm interested@Sharon
MsMontgomery · 51-55, F
I don’t need proof. People will still have undeniable proof & choose to poo-poo it away. I don’t care what other people believe... I know God is real.
Harry! Brilliant!@Sharon
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]a true Christian[/quote]

That’s a perfect example of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 [quote]That’s a perfect example of the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy[/quote]

It's a perfect example of the truth.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@Texasgurl BTW one of the biggest fallacies about the Bible is that it was political. It is Spiritual not political. Unfortunately too many learned people don't know what they think they know.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@hippyjoe1955 [quote]learned people[/quote]

And they make fun of us who have the truth dwelling within us.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@GodSpeed63 So they think. "But knowledge makes us proud of ourselves, while love makes us helpful to others." and again "But knowledge makes us proud of ourselves". But what is perfect will someday appear,and what isn't perfect
will then disappear. When we were children, we thought and reasoned as children do. But when we grew up, we quit our childish ways." Much of what the cult of scientism cult trumpets is false knowledge and makes those in the cult proud of their degrees and life in the faculty lounge pretending to be scientists. Sadly they are fools. Their knowledge is false and their faith prevents them from questioning it.
TexChik · F
Even in the presence of increasing evidence , many just won’t ever accept God. I’m fine with that . The Bible foretold of it ... 🤷🏻‍♀️
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@TexChik [quote]Even in the presence of increasing evidence , many just won’t ever accept God. I’m fine with that . The Bible foretold of it ... 🤷🏻‍♀️[/quote]

I know, sister, but we're still here to bring witness to the truth in love.
xixgun · M
Believe what you like, but don't try and trash my beliefs in the process.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@xixgun Amen, brother.
Tarxarin · 26-30, M
@xixgun It's like because they have different beliefs people get hostile and start them vs us mentality. We are people here. Respect is the key.
I thought you posted this ironically, but I guess you were being serious.
While I *do* think that a proper theology is compatible with science, this sort of unsupported misreporting of science by a guy who clearly does not have enough background to get it right does NOT help...

This is a story about a guy misunderstanding something, so it is an (incorrect) opinion...not actual news.

I know, for Fox to have fake news is...unthinkable to those who watch it.

 
Post Comment