sillyputty
Banned
- 3,634
- 21
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2011
Originally Posted by JaysRcrak
Originally Posted by sillyputty
Originally Posted by JaysRcrak
Why do athiests always want you to PROVE there is a God, when you cant PROVE what you believe in?
The scientific explanation of creation has as many holes in it as the religious explanation.
The truth is it doesnt matter. This debate will never end.
NO ONE SAYS ANYTHING WITHOUT PROOF!
Only when it comes to religion do you not ask for proof!
Look at EVERYTHING YOU KNOW.
Don't you ask engineers to prove that their bridges are safe?
Don't you ask for chefs to prove their food is cooked properly?
Don't you ask for proof that money was deposited in your account?
Don't you ask for proof that someone murdered someone else?
Don't you ask for proof that this high school BB player will be worth bringing to the NBA?
Don't you ask for proof that you were speeding when the cop pulls you over?
Don't you ask for proof that your answer on a test was wrong?
Don't you ask for proof that lightening is caused by electric discharge between the clouds and not "god"???
Yet when it comes to people who say "god is real and it exists" you DO NOT ASK FOR PROOF
IF YOU ASSERT SOMETHING YOU MUST PROVIDE PROOF OR EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM.
RELIGION OR YOUR "FAITH" DOES NOT ...I REPEAT...DOES...NOT... GET A PASS
whew! I'm glad you were here to explain to me EVERYTHING that I know. Now I know where my intelligence begins and ends. Thanx.
People say things all the time without proving their statements.
Big Bang Theory. People believe it, yet it hasnt been proven.
Existence of Aliens. People believe it, yet it hasnt been proven.
Space/Time continuum. People believe in it, but yet it hasnt been proven that such a thing exist.
Worm holes. People believe in it, but yet it hasnt been proven that such a thing exist.
Migraine Headaches. Researchers have ideas about the causes, but none have been proven.
Cerebral allergies. Researchers have ideas about what cause them, but none have been proven
cytotoxicity testing, subcutaneous provocative challenge, immune complex assays,IgG subclass assays, are all unproven methods to diagnose food allergies.
People claim to know how old the universe is. But yet every so often the number changes. Because they cant prove the distances of redshifts are accurate.
The list goes on and on. So yes people do say things without proving them.
So my question to you is: why does it matter to you what another person believes? Do you.
So Nyuh Shi Dae wrote:
There is no scientific explanation of "creation". There are scientific explanations of how life began. Perhaps that's what you mean? Those explanations are supported by what we know through science, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.
The Big Bang Theory is the explanation that science gives for the creation of the universe. Is it not?
EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THESE CLAIMS TO A DEGREE OF RELIABILITY.
Science does NOT claim absolute truth.
This is where the evidence points to.
People who BELIEVE these things are wrong. I will take credit for science not explaining itself HONESTLY.
Science will never understanding everything. it attempts to understand everything as much as it can. It merely attempts to explain things to the best of its ability. There is always a degree of reliability that must be introduced.
This is why its hard for people to understand.
Even in medicine, there are MILLIONS of things that are not completely understood...if you even knew you might crawl under a desk and be afraid to come out...i'm dead serious. But we can understand things to an extent and try to understand them better based on the data and compile it explain phenomena.
Evidence leading to supporting a conclusion proves things only to an extent! Thats the point.
WE ARE TRYING! We're not just accepting things with ONE explanation and ending it.
There is a difference with accepting doctrine in which NONE of the claims have evidence. That is inaccurate and dishonest.
It matters to me what someone else knows because if its WRONG and there is no EVIDENCE society runs into the dangerous problem of accepting things that haven't been even reasonably supported by evidence.
There is no need to be a smart ___ about it. You know exactly what you're trying to do.
If you don't value evidence and empirical models then you could assert anything and NEVER be wrong. Get out of here with that trash argument. You know better than that.
Its about being intellectually consistent and honest.