Scientific Facts In The Bible

page: 11
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 



Also, I believe I spoke about the untestable nature of God before. Test time. Test light. Test fire. You could probably tell me a lot about photons and things like this but have you ever scientifically tested any of these things? But yet you regard them as gospel.


I can find a number of books online right now that will show me the full records and documentation for the experiments and research that have determined today's knowledge about such things. Did you read the last step of the scientific method? Communicate your findings. Our scientists have published their results in numerable places and forms. The point being, that if I did test their findings, I would find that not only would my results reflect theirs, but that their years of studying such things would be able to explain to me why I got such a result from my experimentation. Not just what, but why. That's the knowledge testing gives us.

Do you get anything like that from your texts? Can you explain the mechanics and the principles at work behind the forces you revere?


Any test done would not produce any results as all are untestable. You can take the remnants of fire and theorize the products of combustion, which has been done. But any actual test done on fire itself would burn you.


Which is why you no longer put your hand on the hot stove. You had to learn the hard way, didn't you?



You could theorize light and its methods, but could you test it scientifically in any meaningful way? It is clearly there. You live in an infinitely complexed, perfectly balanced world. You respond from an infinitely balanced and complex machine which makes it possible for you to type the words you type. If you want signs, they are literally all around you.


Then explain it to me, please. Explain how these signs point to exclusively your god and no other cause. Explain how you arrived at this conclusion, how you tested it, and exactly what the results were. Oh, but that's right...you just settled for the easiest answer you could find, didn't you? That's what it means to not test something. It means you jump on the first available solution. That's not very scientific.




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Also Richard Dawkins quote is available online.
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


i like to come to defense of Christians, but certainly not their wrong-doings.

As for why I think it's immoral, it's probably because I'm looking at it from an objective perspective.
I'd rather be wrong in your eyes, than to be burdened with the reason to explain.

I've never tried to prove the existence of God, and I wouldn't expect anyone to do it for me.

But trust me, I get your point from an outsider's perspective.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I can imagine that all the answers you seek have already been written on this thread, and I really don't want to write them again. It is frustration when I am asked to repeat myself. This is not intelligent discourse. This seems to me like trolling. And as all are aware, you don't feed the trolls. Anyone with a brain sees what I am saying. And you yourself didn't expound upon the scientific method(which I clearly demonstrated and eloquently described in detail) until I showed it to you. This shows maybe you don't know even the basics of the scientific method which I demonstrated in detail, omitting things that could be deduced without explanation. When it rains do you also run up to people and yell "Hey, your wet!"? You must be a joy to be around, and I mean that honestly. It would be a laugh riot. In fact it makes me want to write a comedy called "Incredibly Obvious Man" and it will be about a man, who all he does is run around and explain the incredibly obvious as if it has struck him by surprise. Like when a fire is burning he will run by and say "Hey thats hot" or when he falls he'll say "The ground is hard" or when he walks outside he'll say "The sky is big!" to the varying levels of annoyance of all those around him.
edit on 1-2-2014 by pleasethink because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 


lol -_-;



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 



I can imagine that all the answers you seek have already been written on this thread


Nope.


It is frustration when I am asked to repeat myself. This is not intelligent discourse. This seems to me like trolling. And as all are aware, you don't feed the trolls.


Oh, I'm not trolling. Not in the slightest. You claimed to love science, so I'm asking about the science that went into your study of theism. I'm asking about the science that led to your current conclusions. But you've just said that God is untestable. Now don't get me wrong, your beliefs are your beliefs. But saying that you love science, then turning around and declaring God untestable, is just plain silly.

Here, maybe this video will clear some things up:




Anyone with a brain sees what I am saying. And you yourself didn't expound upon the scientific method(which I clearly demonstrated and eloquently described in detail) until I showed it to you. This shows maybe you don't know even the basics of the scientific method which I demonstrated in detail, omitting things that could be deduced without explanation.


This is what you said:


I didn't utilize any scientific process to prove my deity.



I wanted to know if God was real(hypothesis). I then looked through many books to find one that was up to snuff and had touched my heart as being both unexplainable as to the knowledge it possesses about the seen world, and also the unseen world.(experiment). I started to implement these words into my everyday life and began to see His magnitude everywhere I looked.(application).


So first, you didn't actually employ any tools of scientific investigation. Then you explain a shoddy job of executing about half the steps involved in the scientific method, using subjective experiences in order to validate an objective statement, like asking someone what they feel when they look at a painting to define the contents of that painting. Then you turn around and tell me that I'm trolling when I say I don't feel that qualifies as actual science. For someone accusing me of being dense, you really don't grasp what I'm trying to express here. Your methods of scientific investigation are the equivalent of serving someone urine at the bar instead of beer.


When it rains do you also run up to people and yell "Hey, your wet!"? You must be a joy to be around, and I mean that honestly. It would be a laugh riot. In fact it makes me want to write a comedy called "Incredibly Obvious Man" and it will be about a man, who all he does is run around and explain the incredibly obvious as if it has struck him by surprise. Like when a fire is burning he will run by and say "Hey thats hot" or when he falls he'll say "The ground is hard" or when he walks outside he'll say "The sky is big!" to the varying levels of annoyance of all those around him.


And now you're resorting to ad hominem. You seem a little upset that I'm asking even this much of you. I really didn't think it was such an unreasonable request.
edit on 1-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


Just for a momaent allow me to put forth a minor challenge to your imagination.

Let us say we live on a planet with blue ground and an environment which is best suited for it's most intellectually advanced inhabitants to have developed a furry coat which is purple in color. These creatures also have six limbs, two arms and four legs. They also have a prehensile proboscis which they use in feeding themselves. They have developed to an industrial stage which includes the manufacture and use of cars and airplanes but not ships because there are no large bodies of water.

One day, Antwon walks up to Bevis and tells him about a two legged creature had just landed in a craft which slid across the ground and the two legged creature was worried about his "ship" sinking and be lost.

Just how improbable would it be for Antwon to not think Bevis had lost his mind ???

You see perspective is everything. Perspective! Prespective! Prespective!

Our world is "normal" to us because it has developed in a manner which has allowed us to survive and develope to our current stage. If it had been different, we would not notice any difference; that would be a different normal but still normal. You can tell all the stories and tales you want and they will all, in some way or other, only reflect what is normal from your prospective.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


well, i'm not going to get into your argument with him, but i will say that being able to admit you might be wrong, takes an act of humility.

something most Christians do well to have, as pride is a cardinal sin.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 



well, i'm not going to get into your argument with him, but i will say that being able to admit you might be wrong, takes an act of humility.

something most Christians do well to have, as pride is a cardinal sin.


Coming from the guy whose god is the definition of egocentrism. I don't mean to be rude, I'm just pointing it out.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


lol, sorry if that's what you got out of the conversation :|

one of the ten commandments is to not take the Lord's name in vain...

does sound a bit egocentric doesn't it? hmm, I don't think God is egocentric, but I wouldn't doubt it was an important subject.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


In the context it is. Here is a thought experiment for yourself, who ironically is named after infinity. Try to imagine something that has no beginning and no end. It is difficult, as it goes against a finite creatures understanding. So if you can have trouble even understanding a base level of Gods being, than one probably must go about it in a different way. The different way I am explaining is His Word(read it), His Creation(studied it), His Spirit(felt it). This is my method, and seems sufficient for me. My love of science assisted in all but the last one. Is this clearly worded? Also, nothing can be after infinity as infinity is endless, therefore your motto does not make any sense. But yet I try to explain myself. Just because you use big words, doesn't mean you use your brain. Keep trying though.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 


btw, i don't think it would help the argument any to be more lighthearted considering whom you're arguing with, but it could certainly help yourself



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 



In the context it is. Here is a thought experiment for yourself, who ironically is named after infinity. Try to imagine something that has no beginning and no end. It is difficult, as it goes against a finite creatures understanding.


You're thinking way too hard about this. No end and no beginning, eh?




So if you can have trouble even understanding a base level of Gods being, than one probably must go about it in a different way. The different way I am explaining is His Word(read it), His Creation(studied it), His Spirit(felt it).


That's what you call science?


This is my method, and seems sufficient for me. My love of science assisted in all but the last one. Is this clearly worded? Also, nothing can be after infinity as infinity is endless, therefore your motto does not make any sense.


Again, you're thinking way too hard about it. Pick a point in that circle. Any point at all. What comes after it?


But yet I try to explain myself. Just because you use big words, doesn't mean you use your brain. Keep trying though.


More ad hominem. Why must you keep trying to attack me?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jarring
 


I believe it was him who first said I probably learned by putting my hand on the stove. And to be honest, I clearly have no idea who this person is. And even if I did, I don't think it would change anything, and I don't believe I have said anything overly offensive which was uncalled for. Respect is earned mind you.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


you're extremely condescending, and I don't think a circle is the best model to describe infinity.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by pleasethink
 


i was just saying, it would probably be easier on you



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Jarring
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


lol, sorry if that's what you got out of the conversation :|

one of the ten commandments is to not take the Lord's name in vain...

does sound a bit egocentric doesn't it? hmm, I don't think God is egocentric, but I wouldn't doubt it was an important subject.


Yes, it is egocentric because his name is the only one he cares about. "Thou shalt take no name in vain." There, that sounds a little more judicial, doesn't it? Rather than seeing to it that "my bum shall be wiped before anyone else's." And yes, that is what it feels like to me. Your god wants the first pick of the candy bowl at any given time for as long as he chooses. He devoted four commandments to self-recognition that might have been better used for drawing a few more lines in the sand where human welfare and social dynamics are concerned. The fact that the four pertaining to himself were the first ones to touch stone just tells us that he was thinking of himself more than anything else while he was deciding what the rules of the game were. So yes, egocentric is one word that comes to mind.

edit on 1-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Well, there is sort of meta-reasoning behind it. If you were able to follow that commandment flawlessly, you wouldn't take anything in vain.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Jarring
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


you're extremely condescending, and I don't think a circle is the best model to describe infinity.


I apologize if I come across that way. I prefer to call it a low tolerance for foolishness. And if you feel you can give us a better model for infinity, then by all means, throw 'er in the ring.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Jarring
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Well, there is sort of meta-reasoning behind it. If you were able to follow that commandment flawlessly, you wouldn't take anything in vain.


We're human. We don't follow anything flawlessly.
edit on 1-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join