Christian Leader Blames Gay’s for Hurricane Sandy

[Dev]

If he doesn't fit the standards of proof, then there is no reason to believe he exists.

[hotcoffee]

How did this discussion get twisted into the validity of the Bible?

Sometimes you guys confuse me....

[Dev]

Something about disasters as the supreme childs punishment for bad behavior and the bs story of noah's ark.

For god so loved the world that he drowned all the mother####ers in it...amirite?

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Dev

If he doesn't fit the standards of proof, then there is no reason to believe he exists.

Kinda like the actual creation of the earth and planets?
No standards of proof, so I can find no reason to believe in it.

the scientific theory is every bit as magical, and requires every bit as much faith in
"Fairy tales" as does the Biblical explanations,, actually, Science requires more faith when you consider the odds of everything working out exactly right to allow for the things that are here.

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by hotcoffee

How did this discussion get twisted into the validity of the Bible?

Sometimes you guys confuse me....

Thread drift. A phenomenon not uncommon, and certainly not unique to this place.

One of the most heated and vitriolic abortion flame-wars I ever saw started out as a conversation about someone enjoying a new book at Starbucks.



In the big scheme of things, this thread hasn't really even gone that far adrift.

[Dev]

Kinda like the actual creation of the earth and planets?
No standards of proof, so I can find no reason to believe in it.

This statement makes no sense; maybe you can clarify. We've only begun to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding the universe. "Science can't explain x,y,or z" does not equate to god.

the scientific theory is every bit as magical, and requires every bit as much faith in
"Fairy tales" as does the Biblical explanations,, actually, Science requires more faith when you consider the odds of everything working out exactly right to allow for the things that are here.

Scientific theory vs. theory: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

You are confusing your definitions of the word theory. No faith required for scientific theory, just evidence.

Faith by definition is belief without evidence. Without faith, the whole concept of a god that exists outside our reality is crazy talk.

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Dev

This statement makes no sense; maybe you can clarify. We've only begun to scratch the surface when it comes to understanding the universe. "Science can't explain x,y,or z" does not equate to god.



Scientific theory vs. theory: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

You are confusing your definitions of the word theory. No faith required for scientific theory, just evidence.

Faith by definition is belief without evidence. Without faith, the whole concept of a god that exists outside our reality is crazy talk.

First, lets try to stay away frome Wikpedia when attempting to prove a point. Its not exactly reliable.
However, since I am confused, perhaps you can clear all of this up for me and explain how something was created from nothing. Or do you just blindly accept on your faith in science that this thing, although said not to be possible by science, is actually possible.
And if you think it is possible when science tells you its not possible, are you not equally questioning the very science that you try to disprove God with? and you are basing the proof that God does not exist on the fact that he is scientifically impossible?

[hotcoffee]

Originally Posted by bcp

However, since I am confused, perhaps you can clear all of this up for me and explain how something was created from nothing. Or do you just blindly accept on your faith in science that this thing, although said not to be possible by science, is actually possible.

The fact that something was created from nothing is really not what you want to know.... because God is not nothing....

Here's the way it worked.... there was God.... and [to put it in geek speak] there was a black hole]..... The God said let there be light.... in other words God [who is the only entity who could design all the minute details of everything created IMHO] was there first and then He started to create....

Think of the blank canvas and an purely talented artist....

Most people forget that in the beginning there was God....

When you open a dark closet you turn on a light.... God had to make the light.... so it's not all that inconceivable... right?

[Hank]

Originally Posted by hotcoffee

The fact that something was created from nothing is really not what you want to know.... because God is not nothing....

Here's the way it worked.... there was God.... and [to put it in geek speak] there was a black hole]..... The God said let there be light.... in other words God [who is the only entity who could design all the minute details of everything created IMHO] was there first and then He started to create....

Think of the blank canvas and an purely talented artist....

Most people forget that in the beginning there was God....

When you open a dark closet to turn on a light.... God had to make the light.... so it's not all that inconceivable... right?

are you high?

[Dev]

First, lets try to stay away frome Wikpedia when attempting to prove a point. Its not exactly reliable.

Would it make you feel better if I linked the dozens of external references on that page? It's not 100% reliable, but we're not writing a scholarly thesis here.

However, since I am confused, perhaps you can clear all of this up for me and explain how something was created from nothing. Or do you just blindly accept on your faith in science that this thing, although said not to be possible by science, is actually possible.

Abiogenesis is the leading theory at the moment. Notice I said theory and not scientific theory. There is compelling evidence, but it is far from being a solid scientific theory.

And if you think it is possible when science tells you its not possible, are you not equally questioning the very science that you try to disprove God with? and you are basing the proof that God does not exist on the fact that he is scientifically impossible?

This is the answer that leads to all kinds of crazy arguments, so I'll try to keep it simple. To prove that something does not exist would require an infinite knowledge of the universe. I can't disprove the existance of god anymore than I can the existance of purple-footed pizzas in neon donut spaceships. I accept this, science accepts this.

I can however, reject the notion of god based on the basis that no empirical evidence exists to support the claim that god(s) exist. This is the basis of agnostic atheism.