1969912 0 #76 January 16, 2008 How about this one? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #77 January 16, 2008 Quote Is it necessery to divert peoples attention from the road with great fuck off signs telling you hell is real? Im sure many have nearly found out themselves with these distracting things. But if you make rules against those signs, then they will make rules against the "Porn" and "Stripclub" signs.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 January 16, 2008 If you're that easily distracted from task, maybe you shouldn't be driving? Not a slam, I'm being serious.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #79 January 16, 2008 >'Globalism' will destroy my country as well as yours. I thought you supported our recent adventures in global security! Don't go all wobbly on us now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #80 January 16, 2008 QuoteFor the record, I know that churchs ( in most contexts) are exempt. I never said you didn't. QuoteI may not know how to explain the exact reasons (leagal or not) but I DO know the result. So, forgive me if I do not know at much as you think you do but,so be it. But the reason why is what we were talking about, and you boldly stated what you thought the reason was (seperation of church and state). If you actually didn't know the reason churches are tax exempt then why did you say it?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #81 January 16, 2008 QuoteSo you're stating that all scientists must then be atheists? Well, sicence is the developement of knowledge based on empirical observation and rational deduction whereas religion is revealed knowledge maintained in spite of empirical observation and rational deduction. It seems to be fairly obvious that if you adhere to one methodology, you'd have a difficult time adhereing to the other one simultaneously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #83 January 16, 2008 No one would have the time or patience to listen to all that He has to confess... would take the complete RC church, working in shifts. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #84 January 16, 2008 --Well, sicence is the developement of knowledge based on empirical observation and rational deduction. ____________________________________ Agreed. --whereas religion is revealed knowledge maintained in spite of empirical observation and rational deduction. It seems to be fairly obvious that if you adhere to one methodology, you'd have a difficult time adhereing to the other one simultaneously. __________________________________________ There is a difference between religion and a spiritual relationship with God. Religion as you say ignores empirical & rational deduction. Relating to God on a personal basis, from the spirit, is free from such limitations. Science and Spirituality combine to allow for a harmonious understanding of reality. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #85 January 16, 2008 But how do you scientifically explain god? If you can't, chances are it doesn't exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #86 January 16, 2008 Quote There is a difference between religion and a spiritual relationship with God. Religion as you say ignores empirical & rational deduction. Relating to God on a personal basis, from the spirit, is free from such limitations. Science and Spirituality combine to allow for a harmonious understanding of reality. Spirituality is pretty much meaningless to me. Still have fun with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #87 January 16, 2008 > But how do you scientifically explain god? If you can't, chances are it doesn't exist. There's no problem explaining him scientifically. The problem is you can't test any of your explanations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #88 January 16, 2008 QuoteThere's no problem explaining him scientifically. The problem is you can't test any of your explanations. To be scientifically useful and valid, a theory must make predictions that are testable. Confirming a prediction lends support to a theory; negating a prediction suggests the theory may be wrong. Unless such tests can be performed, an idea is simply philosophical, not scientific. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #89 January 16, 2008 >Unless such tests can be performed, an idea is simply philosophical, not scientific. Like I said, there's no problem coming up with an explanation that might be scientifically valid. As it cannot be tested, it's somewhat of a moot point. Note that hypotheses that cannot be tested are not "non-scientific" on that basis alone. A hypothesis about physics during the first 10^-36 seconds of the universe may well be both scientific and untestable. It may, however, become testable in the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #90 January 16, 2008 QuoteLike I said, there's no problem coming up with an explanation that might be scientifically valid. Care to give it a shot? QuoteAs it cannot be tested, it's somewhat of a moot point. If a scientific god hypothesis can't make any testable predictions whatsoever then I'll still say it ain't scientific. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #91 January 16, 2008 If you go along with the bible, god isn't just not provable, but also contradicts a bunch of proven scientific theories, which in turn means it can not be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #92 January 16, 2008 >>Like I said, there's no problem coming up with an explanation that >>might be scientifically valid. >Care to give it a shot? Sure. God, as an external intelligent entity, pinched off a pocket universe out of _his_ universe and allowed it to unfold. He keeps an eye on us through brane interaction between the two universes. >If a scientific god hypothesis can't make any testable predictions >whatsoever then I'll still say it ain't scientific. Do you feel that hypotheses on the very early stages of the universe are non-scientific? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #93 January 16, 2008 QuoteBut how do you scientifically explain god? If you can't, chances are it doesn't exist. So these people who say that they don't necessarily believe in God as such, but they consider themselves to be spiritual, are full of it? You really can't prove the human spirit, either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #94 January 17, 2008 Quote>>Like I said, there's no problem coming up with an explanation that >>might be scientifically valid. >Care to give it a shot? Sure. God, as an external intelligent entity, pinched off a pocket universe out of _his_ universe and allowed it to unfold. He keeps an eye on us through brane interaction between the two universes. >If a scientific god hypothesis can't make any testable predictions >whatsoever then I'll still say it ain't scientific. Do you feel that hypotheses on the very early stages of the universe are non-scientific? The good old hyperspace excuse... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #95 January 17, 2008 --But how do you scientifically explain god? If you can't, chances are it doesn't exist ____________________________________ Scientific observations and Spiritual Truth are not interchangeable and therefore can not be understood or proved by the same methods. We are born with spiritual needs that can only be satisfied by spiritual wisdom and a relationship with God. The proof occurs when those needs are recognized and then satisfied by faith and wisdom from God. God reached out to us through His Son to assist us in the discovery of the spiritual part of ourselves. ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crotalus01 0 #96 January 17, 2008 If you could scientically prove the existance of God what would be the point of faith? As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #97 January 17, 2008 Quote--But how do you scientifically explain god? If you can't, chances are it doesn't exist ____________________________________ Scientific observations and Spiritual Truth are not interchangeable and therefore can not be understood or proved by the same methods. We are born with spiritual needs that can only be satisfied by spiritual wisdom and a relationship with God. The proof occurs when those needs are recognized and then satisfied by faith and wisdom from God. God reached out to us through His Son to assist us in the discovery of the spiritual part of ourselves. ... I would say the only need we get born with is to have a feeling to actually be important and loved and that in turn leads to religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #98 January 17, 2008 Quote>Care to give it a shot? Sure. God, as an external intelligent entity, pinched off a pocket universe out of _his_ universe and allowed it to unfold. He keeps an eye on us through brane interaction between the two universes. The Cambridge English dictionary defines science as: (knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities: Bill, your hypothesis hasn't dealt with any of the points raised in the definition of science. There is no observation that leads you to suspecting an external god, no systematic study, no measurements, experiments, theories or predictions. There are also some pretty big holes in your hypothesis. First you are assuming that the universe needs a creator and you haven't stated why this is a reasonable assumption. You also have the problem of infinite regression: who created this god's universe... ad infinitum. If you cite god as a prime mover you need to explain why this universe cannot itself be the prime mover. Also, this hypothesis has no predictive power. It cannot explain the developement of the universe the way we see it without invoking further divine influence and you have no evidence to support such a hypothesis. In fact you have no evidence to suggest that there is a god of any sort or that one is even needed so your hypothesis has no empirical basis at all. In short, this hypothesis is not emirical, is not self-consistent, has no predictive power, is untestable and in conclusion it definately isn't scientific. At a pinch you could call it science-fiction. QuoteDo you feel that hypotheses on the very early stages of the universe are non-scientific? That depends on the hypothesis. The one you just gave certainly isn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #99 January 17, 2008 -- I would say the only need we get born with is to have a feeling to actually be important and loved and that in turn leads to religion . _____________________________________________ That could be, but many of us have also become aware of a desire to know God personally. And as a part of that awareness we adopt His values to create our reality. ____________________________________________ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #100 January 17, 2008 How can you scientifically prove there is no god? _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
