nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
This is the stuff that the naysayers of Hawking would rather hear. Many of you don't realize how ridiculous you sound, but perhaps, maybe you do, and then love being like this guy above!
GOD DID NOT CREATE THE UNIVERSE (says my man Steve)
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by nat turner,
- Start date
- 1,540
- 36
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
This.
Basically the believers here are pissed that someone else does not believe in what they do.
- 1,540
- 36
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
This.
Basically the believers here are pissed that someone else does not believe in what they do.
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Originally Posted by torgriffith
Didn't that article from the other post about 2012 solar flares talk about how scientist were wrong about their theory of carbon dating since there really is no accurate constant to measure it against. ( Decay rate not consistently the same across the universe).
My thing with modern science is that it's not complete. They are making it up as they go. Much like Hawkings is. Too bad for mental domes of the people that hang on to this guys every word.
Both modern religion and modern science are constantly evolving. Would you take that as evolution of science and religion, or creationism because like Mo Matik pointed out, God separated rather than create, so that when it comes back together, a witness would say that's evolution rather while the ( putter togetherer) would claim he simply recreated what once simply always existed. This brings it down to subjectivity of the viewer IMO on the universe and it's origins.
There is a big difference between making things up, and then learning something new that has actually been proven to exist. Religion and the thought of a "god" is made up, science is in the search a proven theory. The thought of a God through religion as being equal with scientific research is contradictory.
Superstition can never be equal to scientific fact.
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Originally Posted by torgriffith
Didn't that article from the other post about 2012 solar flares talk about how scientist were wrong about their theory of carbon dating since there really is no accurate constant to measure it against. ( Decay rate not consistently the same across the universe).
My thing with modern science is that it's not complete. They are making it up as they go. Much like Hawkings is. Too bad for mental domes of the people that hang on to this guys every word.
Both modern religion and modern science are constantly evolving. Would you take that as evolution of science and religion, or creationism because like Mo Matik pointed out, God separated rather than create, so that when it comes back together, a witness would say that's evolution rather while the ( putter togetherer) would claim he simply recreated what once simply always existed. This brings it down to subjectivity of the viewer IMO on the universe and it's origins.
There is a big difference between making things up, and then learning something new that has actually been proven to exist. Religion and the thought of a "god" is made up, science is in the search a proven theory. The thought of a God through religion as being equal with scientific research is contradictory.
Superstition can never be equal to scientific fact.
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
Those comments Pat Robertson made is utmost reprehensible and ignorant on his part. It is evident that he doesn't know the decades of oppression, and the whole full scope of the History of Haiti.
But, the 700 club is a fraudulent Christian network. They have close ties with the Vatican.
But, the 700 club is a fraudulent Christian network. They have close ties with the Vatican.
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
Those comments Pat Robertson made is utmost reprehensible and ignorant on his part. It is evident that he doesn't know the decades of oppression, and the whole full scope of the History of Haiti.
But, the 700 club is a fraudulent Christian network. They have close ties with the Vatican.
But, the 700 club is a fraudulent Christian network. They have close ties with the Vatican.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Well, if Steven Hawking said it, it must be true.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
Well, if Steven Hawking said it, it must be true.
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
THIS,
The complexity of life is in my humanness, that relationship of living in the world that is inter-subjective.
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
THIS,
The complexity of life is in my humanness, that relationship of living in the world that is inter-subjective.
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
But that still does not prove that some deity is responsible for all of this, especially just for "us".
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
But that still does not prove that some deity is responsible for all of this, especially just for "us".
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
"Remember the line in the movie Contact ? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.
There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.
One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.
The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.
Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion."
God's essence is contained fully in my finger, it is the underlying reality of BEING.
CAN SCIENCE PROVE LOVE?
There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.
One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.
The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.
Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion."
God's essence is contained fully in my finger, it is the underlying reality of BEING.
CAN SCIENCE PROVE LOVE?
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
"Remember the line in the movie Contact ? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.
There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.
One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.
The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.
Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion."
God's essence is contained fully in my finger, it is the underlying reality of BEING.
CAN SCIENCE PROVE LOVE?
There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.
One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.
The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.
Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion."
God's essence is contained fully in my finger, it is the underlying reality of BEING.
CAN SCIENCE PROVE LOVE?
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
It's only superstition to someone on the outside looking in. The modern scientific(modern) community is not that dumb IMO. They just tell the public the appropriate "truth" for the time. Times change. So does what people are willing to except as truth. They are making the truth because whatever they deem as the truth, the rest of the participating world will take it and run with it. Teach it in school. write in into movie, preach it etc....Originally Posted by Nat Turner
Originally Posted by torgriffith
Didn't that article from the other post about 2012 solar flares talk about how scientist were wrong about their theory of carbon dating since there really is no accurate constant to measure it against. ( Decay rate not consistently the same across the universe).
My thing with modern science is that it's not complete. They are making it up as they go. Much like Hawkings is. Too bad for mental domes of the people that hang on to this guys every word.
Both modern religion and modern science are constantly evolving. Would you take that as evolution of science and religion, or creationism because like Mo Matik pointed out, God separated rather than create, so that when it comes back together, a witness would say that's evolution rather while the ( putter togetherer) would claim he simply recreated what once simply always existed. This brings it down to subjectivity of the viewer IMO on the universe and it's origins.
There is a big difference between making things up, and then learning something new that has actually been proven to exist. Religion and the thought of a "god" is made up, science is in the search a proven theory. The thought of a God through religion as being equal with scientific research is contradictory.
Superstition can never be equal to scientific fact.
Science means knowledge. from the latin word scientia. It's no secret that knowledge is hidden, lied about, and re shaped for whatever it's purpose may be. Science just ain't research of facts like you thinking.
- 1,539
- 12
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
It's only superstition to someone on the outside looking in. The modern scientific(modern) community is not that dumb IMO. They just tell the public the appropriate "truth" for the time. Times change. So does what people are willing to except as truth. They are making the truth because whatever they deem as the truth, the rest of the participating world will take it and run with it. Teach it in school. write in into movie, preach it etc....Originally Posted by Nat Turner
Originally Posted by torgriffith
Didn't that article from the other post about 2012 solar flares talk about how scientist were wrong about their theory of carbon dating since there really is no accurate constant to measure it against. ( Decay rate not consistently the same across the universe).
My thing with modern science is that it's not complete. They are making it up as they go. Much like Hawkings is. Too bad for mental domes of the people that hang on to this guys every word.
Both modern religion and modern science are constantly evolving. Would you take that as evolution of science and religion, or creationism because like Mo Matik pointed out, God separated rather than create, so that when it comes back together, a witness would say that's evolution rather while the ( putter togetherer) would claim he simply recreated what once simply always existed. This brings it down to subjectivity of the viewer IMO on the universe and it's origins.
There is a big difference between making things up, and then learning something new that has actually been proven to exist. Religion and the thought of a "god" is made up, science is in the search a proven theory. The thought of a God through religion as being equal with scientific research is contradictory.
Superstition can never be equal to scientific fact.
Science means knowledge. from the latin word scientia. It's no secret that knowledge is hidden, lied about, and re shaped for whatever it's purpose may be. Science just ain't research of facts like you thinking.
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Originally Posted by torgriffith
It's only superstition to someone on the outside looking in. The modern scientific(modern) community is not that dumb IMO. They just tell the public the appropriate "truth" for the time. Times change. So does what people are willing to except as truth. They are making the truth because whatever they deem as the truth, the rest of the participating world will take it and run with it. Teach it in school. write in into movie, preach it etc....Originally Posted by Nat Turner
Originally Posted by torgriffith
Didn't that article from the other post about 2012 solar flares talk about how scientist were wrong about their theory of carbon dating since there really is no accurate constant to measure it against. ( Decay rate not consistently the same across the universe).
My thing with modern science is that it's not complete. They are making it up as they go. Much like Hawkings is. Too bad for mental domes of the people that hang on to this guys every word.
Both modern religion and modern science are constantly evolving. Would you take that as evolution of science and religion, or creationism because like Mo Matik pointed out, God separated rather than create, so that when it comes back together, a witness would say that's evolution rather while the ( putter togetherer) would claim he simply recreated what once simply always existed. This brings it down to subjectivity of the viewer IMO on the universe and it's origins.
There is a big difference between making things up, and then learning something new that has actually been proven to exist. Religion and the thought of a "god" is made up, science is in the search a proven theory. The thought of a God through religion as being equal with scientific research is contradictory.
Superstition can never be equal to scientific fact.
Science means knowledge. from the latin word scientia. It's no secret that knowledge is hidden, lied about, and re shaped for whatever it's purpose may be. Science just ain't research of facts like you thinking.
The best way to measure what you are suggesting is in the medical field, correct? What disease has religion or God has ever cured...I mean outside of the examples shown in religious texts?
Neither has been proven to work, even against the disease of ignorance and fear. In fact, both are enhanced with the introduction of both religion and "god".
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Originally Posted by torgriffith
It's only superstition to someone on the outside looking in. The modern scientific(modern) community is not that dumb IMO. They just tell the public the appropriate "truth" for the time. Times change. So does what people are willing to except as truth. They are making the truth because whatever they deem as the truth, the rest of the participating world will take it and run with it. Teach it in school. write in into movie, preach it etc....Originally Posted by Nat Turner
Originally Posted by torgriffith
Didn't that article from the other post about 2012 solar flares talk about how scientist were wrong about their theory of carbon dating since there really is no accurate constant to measure it against. ( Decay rate not consistently the same across the universe).
My thing with modern science is that it's not complete. They are making it up as they go. Much like Hawkings is. Too bad for mental domes of the people that hang on to this guys every word.
Both modern religion and modern science are constantly evolving. Would you take that as evolution of science and religion, or creationism because like Mo Matik pointed out, God separated rather than create, so that when it comes back together, a witness would say that's evolution rather while the ( putter togetherer) would claim he simply recreated what once simply always existed. This brings it down to subjectivity of the viewer IMO on the universe and it's origins.
There is a big difference between making things up, and then learning something new that has actually been proven to exist. Religion and the thought of a "god" is made up, science is in the search a proven theory. The thought of a God through religion as being equal with scientific research is contradictory.
Superstition can never be equal to scientific fact.
Science means knowledge. from the latin word scientia. It's no secret that knowledge is hidden, lied about, and re shaped for whatever it's purpose may be. Science just ain't research of facts like you thinking.
The best way to measure what you are suggesting is in the medical field, correct? What disease has religion or God has ever cured...I mean outside of the examples shown in religious texts?
Neither has been proven to work, even against the disease of ignorance and fear. In fact, both are enhanced with the introduction of both religion and "god".
- 5,654
- 707
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
- 5,654
- 707
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2008
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Not to belittle your post but I know that you just didn't use a Hollywood movie, to open the door against science, did you?
Why is that any different than what Pat Robertson was doing?
He was claiming "love" as well!
nat turner
Banned
- 1,879
- 10
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2010
Not to belittle your post but I know that you just didn't use a Hollywood movie, to open the door against science, did you?
Why is that any different than what Pat Robertson was doing?
He was claiming "love" as well!
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
1st question: No
Pat Robertson and the entire 700 club have been exposed, so no matter what he says is invalid, clearly he has different intentions like politicians.
I was merely offering an example of what BEING is to me, (the essence of God) Unity in the acts of contemplation and love, these things are not knowledge (science) but experiences.
The movie brushed up on the same topic, whether science can prove Love or not. It was an example of Human interaction that is all.
- 836
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
1st question: No
Pat Robertson and the entire 700 club have been exposed, so no matter what he says is invalid, clearly he has different intentions like politicians.
I was merely offering an example of what BEING is to me, (the essence of God) Unity in the acts of contemplation and love, these things are not knowledge (science) but experiences.
The movie brushed up on the same topic, whether science can prove Love or not. It was an example of Human interaction that is all.
