This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
Still doesn't beat Iron Maiden.
250.000 people came to see them in Rio
![]()
Doesn't mean that Iron Maiden is right though. But since they are just playing music and not telling people "the truth". They don't have to be. I expect a bit more from someone that is actually preaching the "truth".
250.000 people came to see them in Rio
Doesn't mean that Iron Maiden is right though. But since they are just playing music and not telling people "the truth". They don't have to be. I expect a bit more from someone that is actually preaching the "truth".
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
@Kwek00 I personally don't think any presence of anything is infallible. Just for a small example, not that long ago, coffee was bad for you now they say it isn't. Both sides supplied by doctors. Which truth do you believe?? I think with the Bible the truth is in the results of the content. If it makes you feel better and safer than it is the truth that works undeniably for you.
Just my view.
Just my view.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Dainbramadge
What is the scientific consensus on coffee? And what are the reasons why? Have you read the papers and studies written about it? What is your source?
The moment a religion, a faith, an ideology, ... just someone starts making a claim on the truth. And that claim can be measured, looked at, deducted, reasoned over, etc. Then we can start figuring out if that claim is "valid" or "invalid". If it's "invalid" then it can't be called "the truth". That's how it works. The idea that everyones' opinion is equally valid, just doesn't work in the real world. Some things are just backed up by evidence, if we start creating the idea that everything can be true then were do we end up? In a world full of alternative facts?
[quote]I personally don't think any presence of anything is infallible.[/quote]
So everything can fail? How does that work for you? Like when you are living on a 3th floor appartment, and your electric door opener doesnt work. Do you dare open the window and throw the key down? Or do you walk, because you are afraid that gravity will fail you?
What is the scientific consensus on coffee? And what are the reasons why? Have you read the papers and studies written about it? What is your source?
The moment a religion, a faith, an ideology, ... just someone starts making a claim on the truth. And that claim can be measured, looked at, deducted, reasoned over, etc. Then we can start figuring out if that claim is "valid" or "invalid". If it's "invalid" then it can't be called "the truth". That's how it works. The idea that everyones' opinion is equally valid, just doesn't work in the real world. Some things are just backed up by evidence, if we start creating the idea that everything can be true then were do we end up? In a world full of alternative facts?
[quote]I personally don't think any presence of anything is infallible.[/quote]
So everything can fail? How does that work for you? Like when you are living on a 3th floor appartment, and your electric door opener doesnt work. Do you dare open the window and throw the key down? Or do you walk, because you are afraid that gravity will fail you?
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
@Kwek00 I think you are trying way to hard with this. You seem to be trying to find a reason to disprove faith itself. Can science prove or disprove the existence of God?? If so what are your sources? Have you read any pro and con articles on the subject? Have you read any part of the Bible? Or is everything you wrote your opinion. Also something can't prove.
As far as science being the end all be all in the 70's the world was going to end in large scale global cooling. Now it's global warming. Both supposedly proven by science but yet they contradict themselves.
In a sociological settings there are grey areas. No scientific proof can explain the laws of attraction even tho they try. Personal preference. Nothing about it can be proven or disproved. Why do I like pineapple on my pizza?
Philosophy and religion are ways society uses to help guide them. Their choice of how is their truth. Their claim. Their grey area to travel in.
Sociological things can be hypothesized but there is no science to prove or disprove the results.
As far as science being the end all be all in the 70's the world was going to end in large scale global cooling. Now it's global warming. Both supposedly proven by science but yet they contradict themselves.
In a sociological settings there are grey areas. No scientific proof can explain the laws of attraction even tho they try. Personal preference. Nothing about it can be proven or disproved. Why do I like pineapple on my pizza?
Philosophy and religion are ways society uses to help guide them. Their choice of how is their truth. Their claim. Their grey area to travel in.
Sociological things can be hypothesized but there is no science to prove or disprove the results.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Dainbramadge
[quote]You seem to be trying to find a reason to disprove faith itself. Can science prove or disprove the existence of God??[/quote]
I'm not trying to find a reason to disprove faith itself. I'm saying that the moment that someone makes a claim. And the possibility of researching that claim excists, then we can try to find out if the claim holds validity. This doesn't have to be faith, you can claim something that isn't religious at all, and I can not agree with that. If we can do research on your claim, then we can find out which one of us is correct. If you make claims, it's ussually the person that makes the positive that presents the evidence. Since it's impossible to proof a negative claim. That's also why it's impossible to disprove the excistence of a potential God. However, if the potential God becomes concrete because we get information of how this God character behaves or what he did and what he does... then we can use that information to see of this claim on this particular God holds anny validity.
[quote]As far as science being the end all be all[/quote]
Most scientists don't speak of science as being the end all be all. There are certain things science shouldn't mess with. Claims on morality for instance, can't be found by science. Most scientists also don't go into the extreme of "scientism". Science is a methodology by which people can find more objective facts. Science is also a process, where people come to conclussions, these conclussions get more researched and a conclussion can change. Science shouldn't be dogmatic, the moment it becomes dogmatic it fails to be science. Science also has a human element, which creates human flaws. Either flaws in methodology or just of an emotional nature. People cheat, commit fraud, ... it happens. Sometimes people also just come to a wrong conclussion. It happens. But like your coffee example shows, it's open for discussion and if people find new evidence it's open to change it's opinion.
In a religion, in "faith", this is not the case. Certain truths (THE truth) is dogmatic. These things can't be challenged. If something in the real world comes along, that contests THE truth, a whole lot of strange things can happen. People can become really emotional about this. Then suddenly we have a conflict, because there are 2 claims on the same issue. The issue can be measured, so only one claim can be Valid. That's one of the issues of everyone having a truth.
You haven't answered the question... instead you start talking about preferences like tastes and colours. Are you going to trust gravity or not?
[quote]You seem to be trying to find a reason to disprove faith itself. Can science prove or disprove the existence of God??[/quote]
I'm not trying to find a reason to disprove faith itself. I'm saying that the moment that someone makes a claim. And the possibility of researching that claim excists, then we can try to find out if the claim holds validity. This doesn't have to be faith, you can claim something that isn't religious at all, and I can not agree with that. If we can do research on your claim, then we can find out which one of us is correct. If you make claims, it's ussually the person that makes the positive that presents the evidence. Since it's impossible to proof a negative claim. That's also why it's impossible to disprove the excistence of a potential God. However, if the potential God becomes concrete because we get information of how this God character behaves or what he did and what he does... then we can use that information to see of this claim on this particular God holds anny validity.
[quote]As far as science being the end all be all[/quote]
Most scientists don't speak of science as being the end all be all. There are certain things science shouldn't mess with. Claims on morality for instance, can't be found by science. Most scientists also don't go into the extreme of "scientism". Science is a methodology by which people can find more objective facts. Science is also a process, where people come to conclussions, these conclussions get more researched and a conclussion can change. Science shouldn't be dogmatic, the moment it becomes dogmatic it fails to be science. Science also has a human element, which creates human flaws. Either flaws in methodology or just of an emotional nature. People cheat, commit fraud, ... it happens. Sometimes people also just come to a wrong conclussion. It happens. But like your coffee example shows, it's open for discussion and if people find new evidence it's open to change it's opinion.
In a religion, in "faith", this is not the case. Certain truths (THE truth) is dogmatic. These things can't be challenged. If something in the real world comes along, that contests THE truth, a whole lot of strange things can happen. People can become really emotional about this. Then suddenly we have a conflict, because there are 2 claims on the same issue. The issue can be measured, so only one claim can be Valid. That's one of the issues of everyone having a truth.
You haven't answered the question... instead you start talking about preferences like tastes and colours. Are you going to trust gravity or not?
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
PK. I am dying to see where you are going with this gravity thing. Yes. I believe in gravity.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Dainbramadge It's pretty simple where I'm going with it. You said:
[quote]I personally don't think any presence of anything is infallible.[/quote]
<- This idea, doesn't work. And you are pretty much aware it doesnt work. If you would consider anny finding to have the possibility to be "false" all the time. That would mean you live in a world that is full with uncertaintity. But you aren't living in that world at all, because there are certain things that you trust. I'm pretty sure you trust gravity, just as much that you trust your lungs don't run on water. There are just things that we know for a fact are "objectively" true. And even those facts can be contested in a scientific setting (as I said, you can create a hypothesis in which you argue that gravity doesnt always work. Then you can create a methodology to prove your point, and that methodology will create data which will either validate or debunk your claim).
But you prosposed this idea in a pretty radical and extreme setting (as in: any presence of anything is infallible). So if you way that, and you get one counter example, the extreme narrative looses it's validity.
Then you say stuff like:
[quote]As far as science being the end all be all in the 70's the world was going to end in large scale global cooling. Now it's global warming. Both supposedly proven by science but yet they contradict themselves.
In a sociological settings there are grey areas. No scientific proof can explain the laws of attraction even tho they try. Personal preference. Nothing about it can be proven or disproved. Why do I like pineapple on my pizza?[/quote]
Science is not the end all be all, it's a methodology that helps us get to better objective knowledge. It tries to systematically discover objective truths. That's the purpose of science, and with that objective knowledge (things that are just "true") we can make up our mind about diffrence choices.
As I said, Science is unable to make claims on certain aspects of human life. Morality for instance is outside "science" since it's impossible to objectively measures ones moral ideas. What we can do, is if someones moral ideas are based on data then we can look at that data and see if it's valid or not. Some peoples morals (including myself) are based on certain ideas that don't always stroke with objective reality. Science tries to better or understanding of what is factual. And science does this by methodology and by criticism. Peer revieuws are a way that manny diffrent people look at eachothers methods and data and conclussions. And they all try to figure out if the person that wrote the study/paper didn't make anny mistakes. So that scientific knowledge doesn't become the outcome of one person. It's an entire process that runs behind it.
Can science be wrong at times? Yes, of course. But unlike religion (and this is really important) it supposed to be open for the conversation and changes it's ideas according to new evidence. Again, it's a process.
To come back to "God".
[quote]Can science prove or disprove the existence of God?[/quote]
As long as "God" is nothing more then an abstract idea without substance. If we don't know annything about God. If God is just some idea that lies beyond ourselves. Then Science has absolutely no way to prove or disprove the excistence of such a being. It's just a really far away abstract idea without substance. So to answer your question: Science has no way of determinating that there is such a thing as a God, because science has nothing to research. It only has the idea that there might be something like a God.
But this never happens in religion. In religion we are not talking about a hypothesis, we are talking about a group of people that are organised and prey to "a particulair" kind of God. In Christianity this is mostly defined by the Old and the New testament. In the Muslim faith these are the writings like the Kuran and the Hadiths. In the Jewish religion you have Talmud and the Thorah. (and I'm probably forgetting a lot of books)
So we have knowledge about God, we have knowledge about these datasets (as in the history in which these books are written and found on). We have knowledge about the entire framework in which these religions came to be like they are today (like historical schisms and historical events).
If you ask me, if that particulair God is real. Then we can start doing some research. And then we come to the problem between religion and scientist. That the positive claims made by religious people concerning their faith and their God have never been "valid" claims. They never make it trough the process. So from a scientific point of vieuw we can claim that those particulair interpretations of God are "invalid". And therefore this question that you asked which was highly dubious I might say:
[quote]You seem to be trying to find a reason to disprove faith itself.[/quote]
This sentence holds in it the idea that faith itself is "valid" and that I'm trying to disprove it. But for as far as we know, so far as objective knowledge go, "faith itself" has never been valid. There is no proof why people should have a particlair faith (in this case christianity). There is only a deep longing and hope that it's right, but the certaintity is not there. But this sentence talks about it as if I'm trying to disprove something that is "real". But we never established "faith" is valid, that having faith should be a "real" thing. It's really no up to me to disprove faith, it's actually up for the faithfull to show evidence of why what they believe is correct. So far, none was given. That's also the reason why faith and science are ad odds with eachother. But it's not because science sometimes generate a bad example, it's because "faith" never brought annything real to the table.
[quote]I personally don't think any presence of anything is infallible.[/quote]
<- This idea, doesn't work. And you are pretty much aware it doesnt work. If you would consider anny finding to have the possibility to be "false" all the time. That would mean you live in a world that is full with uncertaintity. But you aren't living in that world at all, because there are certain things that you trust. I'm pretty sure you trust gravity, just as much that you trust your lungs don't run on water. There are just things that we know for a fact are "objectively" true. And even those facts can be contested in a scientific setting (as I said, you can create a hypothesis in which you argue that gravity doesnt always work. Then you can create a methodology to prove your point, and that methodology will create data which will either validate or debunk your claim).
But you prosposed this idea in a pretty radical and extreme setting (as in: any presence of anything is infallible). So if you way that, and you get one counter example, the extreme narrative looses it's validity.
Then you say stuff like:
[quote]As far as science being the end all be all in the 70's the world was going to end in large scale global cooling. Now it's global warming. Both supposedly proven by science but yet they contradict themselves.
In a sociological settings there are grey areas. No scientific proof can explain the laws of attraction even tho they try. Personal preference. Nothing about it can be proven or disproved. Why do I like pineapple on my pizza?[/quote]
Science is not the end all be all, it's a methodology that helps us get to better objective knowledge. It tries to systematically discover objective truths. That's the purpose of science, and with that objective knowledge (things that are just "true") we can make up our mind about diffrence choices.
As I said, Science is unable to make claims on certain aspects of human life. Morality for instance is outside "science" since it's impossible to objectively measures ones moral ideas. What we can do, is if someones moral ideas are based on data then we can look at that data and see if it's valid or not. Some peoples morals (including myself) are based on certain ideas that don't always stroke with objective reality. Science tries to better or understanding of what is factual. And science does this by methodology and by criticism. Peer revieuws are a way that manny diffrent people look at eachothers methods and data and conclussions. And they all try to figure out if the person that wrote the study/paper didn't make anny mistakes. So that scientific knowledge doesn't become the outcome of one person. It's an entire process that runs behind it.
Can science be wrong at times? Yes, of course. But unlike religion (and this is really important) it supposed to be open for the conversation and changes it's ideas according to new evidence. Again, it's a process.
To come back to "God".
[quote]Can science prove or disprove the existence of God?[/quote]
As long as "God" is nothing more then an abstract idea without substance. If we don't know annything about God. If God is just some idea that lies beyond ourselves. Then Science has absolutely no way to prove or disprove the excistence of such a being. It's just a really far away abstract idea without substance. So to answer your question: Science has no way of determinating that there is such a thing as a God, because science has nothing to research. It only has the idea that there might be something like a God.
But this never happens in religion. In religion we are not talking about a hypothesis, we are talking about a group of people that are organised and prey to "a particulair" kind of God. In Christianity this is mostly defined by the Old and the New testament. In the Muslim faith these are the writings like the Kuran and the Hadiths. In the Jewish religion you have Talmud and the Thorah. (and I'm probably forgetting a lot of books)
So we have knowledge about God, we have knowledge about these datasets (as in the history in which these books are written and found on). We have knowledge about the entire framework in which these religions came to be like they are today (like historical schisms and historical events).
If you ask me, if that particulair God is real. Then we can start doing some research. And then we come to the problem between religion and scientist. That the positive claims made by religious people concerning their faith and their God have never been "valid" claims. They never make it trough the process. So from a scientific point of vieuw we can claim that those particulair interpretations of God are "invalid". And therefore this question that you asked which was highly dubious I might say:
[quote]You seem to be trying to find a reason to disprove faith itself.[/quote]
This sentence holds in it the idea that faith itself is "valid" and that I'm trying to disprove it. But for as far as we know, so far as objective knowledge go, "faith itself" has never been valid. There is no proof why people should have a particlair faith (in this case christianity). There is only a deep longing and hope that it's right, but the certaintity is not there. But this sentence talks about it as if I'm trying to disprove something that is "real". But we never established "faith" is valid, that having faith should be a "real" thing. It's really no up to me to disprove faith, it's actually up for the faithfull to show evidence of why what they believe is correct. So far, none was given. That's also the reason why faith and science are ad odds with eachother. But it's not because science sometimes generate a bad example, it's because "faith" never brought annything real to the table.
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
@Kwek00 Ok. Maybe I [i]was[/i] a little to loose in my statement about infallible. But you have brought up other questions about your motives to disprove the reality of faith. People of faith pray to a said such God and through the power of prayer things change or are directly affected to these people. For instance. A cancer patient of faith. Everyone in the congregation prays for them and out of the blue the cancer has gone into remission. For those of faith this is their proof that there is a God. Now for the one that it doesn't work on they pretty much say that God had other plans for them. No real way to measure these but to those of faith they are real and can be measured.
These so called miracles are real enough to them and other believers. Science can't explain why cancer sometimes goes into remission but those of faith can. It happens enough that those of faith can measure it.
I guess I could be way off track with this. But I am just trying to show the side of faith as opposed to hard line science.
Also. If you want to know the real truth in this conversation you will have to PM me. There are definite things I would never air in public and especially on a thread like this.
These so called miracles are real enough to them and other believers. Science can't explain why cancer sometimes goes into remission but those of faith can. It happens enough that those of faith can measure it.
I guess I could be way off track with this. But I am just trying to show the side of faith as opposed to hard line science.
Also. If you want to know the real truth in this conversation you will have to PM me. There are definite things I would never air in public and especially on a thread like this.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
[quote]Ok. Maybe I was a little to loose in my statement about infallible. But you have brought up other questions about your motives to disprove the reality of faith. People of faith pray to a said such God and through the power of prayer things change or are directly affected to these people. For instance. A cancer patient of faith. Everyone in the congregation prays for them and out of the blue the cancer has gone into remission. For those of faith this is their proof that there is a God. Now for the one that it doesn't work on they pretty much say that God had other plans for them. No real way to measure these but to those of faith they are real and can be measured.[/quote]
These are actually 2 diffrent things:
1. The argument that faith is in some way benefitial to a society, that it has it's "merits"?
2. Does praying work?
I had the same conversation with Pfuzzylogic a couple of days ago. He also thought that faith was something that contributes. And that general remark, I'll won't refute. If you go looking trough history, organised religion has held communities together, created social capital and created to a certain degree some stability by imposing a common morality on certain regions. It probably did some more too, it wasn't all negative. Just like with science, you also must make a comparisson to the "human mistakes" in religion. Like not everything that happens has something to do with the believe they follow. Humans are humans and they fuck up. Just like in science.
But at some point you also need to start measuring what the negative parts of faith are. Deep in the orthodoxy (the reason why it's faith) there are some premisses which you need to be faithfull. These are ideas that are nescessary and can't be proven, they are dogmatic. The diffrence between people in the religion and those outside of it, is ussually the acceptance of these premisses. On these premisses faiths builds it's church in which it can mesmerise the people into joining the club. But somewhere in the foundations, the questions that need to ask the questions to all that knowledge that can't be questioned are sealed away in concrete. Now this works great as long as a territory is faithfull or an overall majority of people are faithfull. No one is there to question annything, because these questions are just not asked. The large majority shares these premisses without a doubt. But at soon as other groups that are either differ from religion or just agnostics and atheists get bigger. This has to lead to friction. Because asking these questions is a mockery of the indigenous religious group. And the questions start boiling up about wich scripture is the real one, which interpretation is the real one ... or just people that ask: "does this make even sense". In those moments all these unfounded ideas that people cherish don't help. You even run a risk that they start censoring people that are actually looking for objective truths. Before the 18th century when people did scientific findings (like Gregor Mendel talking about his beans) that were at odd with the church teachings... that wasn't always a good thing for you. It kinda holds you back after a while, because these dogmas come with a price.
Next to holding down process and creating conflict over the realness of something that neither partner has evidence off. You also have the value set that comes with it. Like, God isn't just there to worship. In most myths, God wants something and he's going to tell you how to do it. In case of certain christians God wants you to get to heaven, and he'll tell you how to do it. This really old morality that religious people are so fond off, because it was given by God and stuff... well, lets just say that morality also doesn't work well in a plural society. And since most of the arguments of religious peoples' morality is: It was given by God, maybe we should really look into the validity of God. Just so that the religious peer pressure for certain issues can be talked about on a more objective fashion? Like basing your world vieuw as much to objective facts as you can possibly can in your life, will not be to bad for you in the long run. It's way better then struggling with questions and data about stuff that can't be talked about.
I think if you throw it all in the scales... That it wouldn't bend in the religious advantage, but we can talk about it.
2. Does praying work?
I believe there were studies done on that. And from science point of view praying doesn't work.
I'm also not against praying. People can pray all they wish honestly. I'm pretty much guilty of praying myself. I know it's irrational but I'll do it annyway. It gives comfort, and hope, ... it's emotional I'm okay with it. If people would just pray and nothing else, like if it would stick with praying, then there would be a lot less problems with religion. But when it comes to religion, it never stays with praying.
[quote]These so called miracles are real enough to them and other believers. Science can't explain why cancer sometimes goes into remission but those of faith can. It happens enough that those of faith can measure it.[/quote]
I'll be honest with you. Somewhere deep down, I really believe some hot long haired redhead busty chick with great a personality is waiting for me. And I can measure her in my head too. But that's not the same as something being "real". Once I say this redhead is a real thing, then you probably want to see her picture. And that's where the fantasy stops. [i]Cause I'm not going to show you her picture.[/i]
Sometimes you have people that are afraid of running under a ladder. And they hope everyday not to run on the ladder. These people have a problem, but they don't come with a moral framework. Religion does, it has a high footprint on society and it's pretty high in maintenance. I think we shouldn't agree to disagree to lightly here.
As long as we can keep things civil, you are happy to pop by at anny time.
These are actually 2 diffrent things:
1. The argument that faith is in some way benefitial to a society, that it has it's "merits"?
2. Does praying work?
I had the same conversation with Pfuzzylogic a couple of days ago. He also thought that faith was something that contributes. And that general remark, I'll won't refute. If you go looking trough history, organised religion has held communities together, created social capital and created to a certain degree some stability by imposing a common morality on certain regions. It probably did some more too, it wasn't all negative. Just like with science, you also must make a comparisson to the "human mistakes" in religion. Like not everything that happens has something to do with the believe they follow. Humans are humans and they fuck up. Just like in science.
But at some point you also need to start measuring what the negative parts of faith are. Deep in the orthodoxy (the reason why it's faith) there are some premisses which you need to be faithfull. These are ideas that are nescessary and can't be proven, they are dogmatic. The diffrence between people in the religion and those outside of it, is ussually the acceptance of these premisses. On these premisses faiths builds it's church in which it can mesmerise the people into joining the club. But somewhere in the foundations, the questions that need to ask the questions to all that knowledge that can't be questioned are sealed away in concrete. Now this works great as long as a territory is faithfull or an overall majority of people are faithfull. No one is there to question annything, because these questions are just not asked. The large majority shares these premisses without a doubt. But at soon as other groups that are either differ from religion or just agnostics and atheists get bigger. This has to lead to friction. Because asking these questions is a mockery of the indigenous religious group. And the questions start boiling up about wich scripture is the real one, which interpretation is the real one ... or just people that ask: "does this make even sense". In those moments all these unfounded ideas that people cherish don't help. You even run a risk that they start censoring people that are actually looking for objective truths. Before the 18th century when people did scientific findings (like Gregor Mendel talking about his beans) that were at odd with the church teachings... that wasn't always a good thing for you. It kinda holds you back after a while, because these dogmas come with a price.
Next to holding down process and creating conflict over the realness of something that neither partner has evidence off. You also have the value set that comes with it. Like, God isn't just there to worship. In most myths, God wants something and he's going to tell you how to do it. In case of certain christians God wants you to get to heaven, and he'll tell you how to do it. This really old morality that religious people are so fond off, because it was given by God and stuff... well, lets just say that morality also doesn't work well in a plural society. And since most of the arguments of religious peoples' morality is: It was given by God, maybe we should really look into the validity of God. Just so that the religious peer pressure for certain issues can be talked about on a more objective fashion? Like basing your world vieuw as much to objective facts as you can possibly can in your life, will not be to bad for you in the long run. It's way better then struggling with questions and data about stuff that can't be talked about.
I think if you throw it all in the scales... That it wouldn't bend in the religious advantage, but we can talk about it.
2. Does praying work?
I believe there were studies done on that. And from science point of view praying doesn't work.
I'm also not against praying. People can pray all they wish honestly. I'm pretty much guilty of praying myself. I know it's irrational but I'll do it annyway. It gives comfort, and hope, ... it's emotional I'm okay with it. If people would just pray and nothing else, like if it would stick with praying, then there would be a lot less problems with religion. But when it comes to religion, it never stays with praying.
[quote]These so called miracles are real enough to them and other believers. Science can't explain why cancer sometimes goes into remission but those of faith can. It happens enough that those of faith can measure it.[/quote]
I'll be honest with you. Somewhere deep down, I really believe some hot long haired redhead busty chick with great a personality is waiting for me. And I can measure her in my head too. But that's not the same as something being "real". Once I say this redhead is a real thing, then you probably want to see her picture. And that's where the fantasy stops. [i]Cause I'm not going to show you her picture.[/i]
Sometimes you have people that are afraid of running under a ladder. And they hope everyday not to run on the ladder. These people have a problem, but they don't come with a moral framework. Religion does, it has a high footprint on society and it's pretty high in maintenance. I think we shouldn't agree to disagree to lightly here.
As long as we can keep things civil, you are happy to pop by at anny time.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@Dainbramadge [quote] I think with the Bible the truth is in the results of the content.[/quote]
But which one of contradictory statements in the bible is "the truth"? They can't both/all be.
But which one of contradictory statements in the bible is "the truth"? They can't both/all be.
suzie1960 · 61-69, F
@Dainbramadge [quote]Can science prove or disprove the existence of God??[/quote]
Can science prove or disprove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The principle is the same.
Can science prove or disprove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster? The principle is the same.
Dainbramadge · 56-60, M
@suzie1960 No. But I never insinuated that I don't think if there can be one God that there can't be many others as well. I am just posing the thought that just because, like gravity, you can't touch or see it doesn't mean it's not there. To people of faith it is as real as gravity. They see the acts of said God, which ever they chose to worship, in daily life.