Hawking

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by wxtornado

I had a long, drawn-out reply, but it would again prove to be futile as I'm constantly repeating myself to these strawman arguments of yours, so just the talking points:

1. Evolution is a theory and a fact.

It’s both? Where does it end being fact and begin being a theory? I’ve already stated that I believe evolution, to some degree, is factual. Of course we can see evolutionary processes occurring. This doesn’t disprove the existence of a God and that God created it all. I, like you, could go at length about my opinion on Genesis and it really meant when God created the heavens and the earth. I will simply say that I don’t take the literal “Adam and Eve” depiction.

Originally Posted by wxtornado

2. It doesn't matter if anyone "believes" in it, it's not a belief. It stands or falls on the facts that support it.

If it’s theory and someone believes IN it, it’s a belief. You’re making a distinction without a difference.

Originally Posted by wxtornado

3. Evolution has nothing to do with how life started, nor does it claim to; that's called abiogenesis.

My argument has always been not one scientific THEORY explains how life came to be and, as a result, how we came to be; and not one scientific THEORY proves the non-existence of God; a creator.

Originally Posted by wxtornado

4. Evolution has never claimed to prove that a god or gods don't exist. Why would it?

You’re right, EVOLUTION doesn’t do that. People use evolution as a means to disprove the existence of God. THAT’S where my argument is. Hawking is doing this; using science to disprove the existence of God is a straw man and only serves the purpose of a select few “intellects” to prove how smart they are and how stupid believers are.

Originally Posted by wxtornado

5. People have believed in gods for TENS of thousands of years, not merely thousands

We’ll thanks for clarifying and further bolstering my point.

[wxtornado]

Ignatiuslives, try not to beat your head against a wall too hard after reading that ^^^^^^

[Ignatiuslives]

lol, I certainly won't. I'd like to hold on to my brain cells. I hate forums. Debates like this are much more fun at in person with beer.

[wxtornado]

Originally Posted by Ignatiuslives

lol, I certainly won't. I'd like to hold on to my brain cells. I hate forums. Debates like this are much more fun at in person with beer.

This is true, especially the beer part.

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Ignatiuslives

lol, I certainly won't. I'd like to hold on to my brain cells. I hate forums. Debates like this are much more fun at in person with beer.

Bye

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by wxtornado

Lol, and even redundancy won't matter - it's futile I tell you!

BINGO! Why do you keep trying? I'm going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.

But your statement above proves that your aim is to disprove the exitence of God (i.e. hijack every thread possible to that end)

[PsyOps (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Ignatiuslives

I don't think we have been using evolution to prove that god doesn't exist. Last time I checked, scientific theory is only one step under being a law. Either way, it isn't exactly pure speculation. Even if there were no dark areas in evolution it still could not be used as proof that god doesn't exist.


And you refuse to believe other religions that have even more "thousands of years of study and belief."

I don't think "belief", no matter for how long, makes anything right. That's why there is an empirical system. Studying something that can, by its nature, provide no empirical evidence is of no value either.

The furthest we could ever get is making any god other than a deistic god unreasonable.

And for starman, I thought jesus died a few hundred years before islam appeared? Has he been talking to you?

You really need to start using the “Reply w/ Quote” so we know who you’re responding to.

Evolution has been used numerous times by the resident atheists. And I don’t get “Last time I checked, scientific theory is only one step under being a law”, you’re going to have to explain that one to me. I mean given that argument, believing in God is a theory, since it hasn’t been truly proven with immutable evidence. So, the theory of an existing God is law under the same premise.

My refusal to believe in other religions is no different than your refusal to believe in any religion. The point is, the study and contention of existence of a religion through those studies has existed far longer than any study of science. You just happen to subscribe to the religion of math and science as your explanation for our universe. As a Christian I believe math and science can explain a lot of things in our universe. I believe God wants us to use math and science to find answers for things He didn’t reveal. I happen to think God did that on purpose so we aren’t a bunch of mindless God-bots not required to use any intelligent thinking.

But if you’re going to use science as a means to disprove God, then I’m going to use science to show where it falls way short in that effort.

[wxtornado]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

But if you’re going to use science as a means to disprove God, then I’m going to use science to show where it falls way short in that effort.

Again with this! Are you even reading our posts? Are you intellectually bankrupt, or are you just trolling? Serious question.

"disprove God" - how exactly does one disprove something they don't believe in? I know, maybe you can show me. Do you believe in, ummmm, hairy pink elephants? Or how about jelly beans that can breakdance on command? Pick one that you don't believe in, and show me how you disprove it. Thanks ahead.

[Silver301]

Originally Posted by PsyOps

You really need to start using the “Reply w/ Quote” so we know who you’re responding to.

Evolution has been used numerous times by the resident atheists. And I don’t get “Last time I checked, scientific theory is only one step under being a law”, you’re going to have to explain that one to me. I mean given that argument, believing in God is a theory, since it hasn’t been truly proven with immutable evidence. So, the theory of an existing God is law under the same premise.

My refusal to believe in other religions is no different than your refusal to believe in any religion. The point is, the study and contention of existence of a religion through those studies has existed far longer than any study of science. You just happen to subscribe to the religion of math and science as your explanation for our universe. As a Christian I believe math and science can explain a lot of things in our universe. I believe God wants us to use math and science to find answers for things He didn’t reveal. I happen to think God did that on purpose so we aren’t a bunch of mindless God-bots not required to use any intelligent thinking.

But if you’re going to use science as a means to disprove God, then I’m going to use science to show where it falls way short in that effort.

If evolution is true, it disproves a literal interpretation of the Genesis. We should all be able to agree with that. However, I don't think science can ever disprove God...it can only disprove man-made ideas regarding the nature of God. Many atheists, just like many theists, will fall to the allure of easy arguments that make use of logical fallacies to disprove the beliefs of others.

I will post this question to you, PsyOps, although it could be asked of many other believers in the forum as well...how do we know what portions of the Bible we are to trust literally and which ones we are supposed to be interpreting figuratively? You have already stated that you believe in evolution and don't buy into a literal interpretation of Genesis...so I'm just curious to hear your take on it. Isn't it possible that the scientific approach to acquiring knowledge may continue to disprove any and all literal truth contained by the Bible, and all that will remain is figurative truth with interpretations that have been fabricated to keep a hopelessly outdated collection of myths relevant to our society? I don't ask to be offensive...I'm clearly not a theist myself...but is my logic flawed?

In any case, I still think you guys are creating an argument from a misunderstanding here. Hawking doesn't believe in a personal God, and he doesn't think that discussion of God is required to explain how the universe came into being. Did he ever actually say "THERE IS NO GOD!" ? Lots of know-nothing atheists and overzealous theists might read his words and reach that conclusion, but it seems to me that he is simply stating that he believes that many things which have been attributed to God's direct action in the past can be explained without God being included as a variable. I could write a cookbook that doesn't include God and nobody would care...but isn't that only because we've gotten past the point where we need to invoke the name of God to explain the miracle of cooking with fire?

[Ignatiuslives]

[QUOTE=PsyOps;4384650]
And I don’t get “Last time I checked, scientific theory is only one step under being a law”, you’re going to have to explain that one to me. I mean given that argument, believing in God is a theory, since it hasn’t been truly proven with immutable evidence. So, the theory of an existing God is law under the same premise. [QUOTE]

Happy?

We can play the semantics game with "Theory". Pick a dictionary.

I'll start with Merriam-Webster
"1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject "

now we'll specify "scientific theory"

Princeton defines as "a theory that explains scientific observations"
As such, scientific theories MUST be falsifiable.

Your version of a theory is not falsifiable. With this understanding it is, to be sure, intellectually dishonest to use theory in the same manner for both.

The only effort put forth on the non-believing side has been to correct fallacy in the statements about evolution. We all agreed that it couldn't disprove god. Get over that part.