Creationism vs. science

ok,
First of all, please don't interpret what I say to mean i have power... Did i say i thought i had power? where did that come from.....
What I meant by scripture is not things that came from old unauthored writing, but stuff that sounds old and poetic, yet only has meaning in a vaugue sence, or has double meanings. What i really meant is stuff that sounds old and grand, yet doesn't mean much.

By definition, perfect is all opinionated. How can someone prove that something is perfect? You can say that something is without flaw, but someone else may say it has flaw. You can debate opinion, but i'd rather not because I think its pointless.

I think a more important issue before we discuss ANYTHING, is what you feel about proof (ie evidence). Science exists for the very reason that we do NOT know everything. The purpose of science is to discover all that we can about how things work and how things are.
Can you think of any other way to further knowledge without some sort of observational proof?

"Evidence is basically information which does or doesn't confirm something as fact, but fact still remains, and always will regardless of evidence. Soooooooo it make a lot more sense seek out facts. " Jan

of course fact still remains, but we do not know all the facts. Science exists for us to learn those facts. The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened. Those are facts, and through these facts we can think of reasons why those facts happened, those are called theories.
Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.
You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books. You have to find evidence for a theory. That is science.

"About 5000 years ago God constructed a city by the name of Dwaraka on the western coast of India (then Bharat varsha). When He had completed His pastimes here on earth, He ordered the god of the sea to emerse the city under its waves. It did. And it is still there." Jan

this is evidence of.... god's existence? Where is the evidence that GOD created the city? How do we know that people didn't make the city or that the city was flooded by natural processes?

""You think you have power, but the power remains only in your head. You can flame if you like, in fact, bring it on, I am most certainly in the mood, but remember it is not me you are flaming, all you are doing is bringing up the crap that exists in your mind. ""

Again where did this come from? By the way, im bringing up the crap that exists in my mind when i remeber your words....

"You see you have nothing to go on other than some demonic delusion that this world came out of nothing and all life started from nothing. Such nonsense. Even the progenitor of this nonsense realised that it is a load of kak."

demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian... I do not think the world came from nothing and life started from nothing. WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE STARTED, and we still have much to learn about how life started on earth.
THIS is what science is for, we DO NOT know everything, thus we need (more like want actually) to learn it. Oh and what is progenitor?

" As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139. "

These are just questions, questions don't provide evidence that the theory is wrong. The question are there for science to answer. We have found transitional forms, and many creatures are halfway species. Amphibians bear a very strong resemblence to reptiles AND water creatures (other than fish). This would be good evidence of the transitional amphibians bridging the water and the land.

"Through self-realisation, through understanding that you are not your body or senses. That if you misuse your senses, you are sometimes happy and sometimes sad, which eventually leads to misery, and proper use means you are happy in any situation you may find yourself in. "

Must I ask, What?

"We have the authority within this body/life, because the Supreme Authority has granted it. "

This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?

"So what you are saying is, they have evolved to the state where the old med cannot affect them, yes? That’s cool, that’s called survival, evolution is fact, the theory of evolution regarding the origin of the universe and life therein is false. Your point does not explain how the universe or ourselves got here though. "

No evolution is not fact, it is a theory. But the theory about the origin of the universe and life is not part of that theory. The theory of evolution is Charles Darwin's theory and states that "natural selection" governs how species evolve. It tells nothing about the origin of life or the universe, that is a different theory.

Big bang theory is the main theory on the origin of the universe, and I don't know what the theory on the origin of life on earth is called, but they are all different theories.

But I will say that scientists managed to make "living material" out of what they thought to be junk that would be found in early earth. The sparked it with electricity and the main compounds of living organisms were found after they sparked it in a mass spectrometer analysis.

This is EVIDENCE that life can be formed from something as turbulent as ancient earth.

Tell me what you think about evidence, proof, and observation. Do you think they are nessisary to belif?
Do you think that if there was no evidence of gods existence (I certainly dont have any), it wouldn't matter, you would believe anyway? or not?

Those are the most important philosophical questions, because if we disagree on them, we might be just talking to ourselves...


Frencheneesz
 
Frencheez......

Science exists for the very reason that we do NOT know

Well at least we agree on something.
Science is an external education, it is there so that we can understand the mechanism of the world around us, our bodies and minds, depending on what branch of science we deal with. Would you agree with that?

Real religion is an internal education, it is there to remind us of our real self, our true identity, and the origin of everything. As you can see, there is a difference between the two subjects, but in actuality they are interconnected.

Einstein explained it thus,

"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13

The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened.

Here I have to disagree, there are a number of ways we can obtain facts, i.e. from someone or from experience or by accident.

Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.

I am not disputing that, but there are definitely areas where science cannot be used, don’t you agree?

You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books.

Surely there would be no need, because you would have already found a fact (hypothetically speaking) which is the point of science.

You have to find evidence for a theory. That is science.

My understanding of science is “knowledge.” Knowledge incorporates facts. Sometimes it is nesaccery to find evidence for a theory, when the facts are not known, but what is the point of evidence if something is already known?

Where is the evidence that GOD created the city?

That, you would have to find out, but I’m sure evidence exists. My point is though, it doesn’t matter whether you can find evidence or not. If you cannot find evidence, then does that mean God does not exist? That being the case, do you then give up believing in God because you could not find any empirical evidence.

demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian...

Why? You were not insulted.
What do you think “demonic” means.

WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THE UNIVERSE STARTED, and we still have much to learn about how life started on earth.

That’s a fair enough statement. You say you have much to learn, but you do not consult the vedas, why is this?
Do you already know what “vedas” contains?
Do you understand the Bible so well, that you do not need it to be explained?
How can you develop any knowledge, if right from the start you feel you know what is right and what is wrong?
Einstein and Newton, two landmark scientists do not dismiss God, why do you?

These are just questions, questions don't provide evidence that the theory is wrong.

But very important questions, questions that have not been sufficiently answered. For us to believe this theory we must be satisfied within ourselves, in fact that goes for belief in anything.

The question are there for science to answer.

That seems rather ironic, as science put those questions there in the first place.

We have found transitional forms, and many creatures are halfway species. Amphibians bear a very strong resemblence to reptiles AND water creatures (other than fish). This would be good evidence of the transitional amphibians bridging the water and the land.

Amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, they may look similar in some circumstances, but they are different, so really the evidence is so weak it is not worth mentioning.
I’d say that is a desperate shot in the dark.

This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?

This is not a question evasion tactic.
Earlier you said you “know” you exist, would it be possible for you to display for all to see, the evidence which allowed you to come to this conlusion?

I need you to answer this, so my answer will be more clearer.

How do we know that people didn't make the city

Where would they have got the tools, the diamonds, pearls and gold. Where would they obtain the mechanisms to construct such tall skyscraper buildings, and such elaborate palaces, which went miles out into the Arabian sea.
This is the Gujarat province of India we are talking about.

or that the city was flooded by natural processes?

Yes, by the sea.

No evolution is not fact, it is a theory.

Well lets see shall we!

evolution; The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.[/I]

Do you still think it is a theory?

But I will say that scientists managed to make "living material" out of what they thought to be junk that would be found in early earth. The sparked it with electricity and the main compounds of living organisms were found after they sparked it in a mass spectrometer analysis.

Do you believe that?
Have you seen the experiment?

Tell me what you think about evidence, proof, and observation.

They are what they are, in some cases they are extremely necassery, and in some cases they are not enough to come to any concrete conclusions.
Please don’t get me wrong, I am for science, and all the great work done by some scientists.

Do you think they are nessisary to belief?

I don’t think it is a case of necessity, it is built into your humanity, in fact into all beings.

Do you think that if there was no evidence of gods existence
(I certainly dont have any), it wouldn't matter, you would believe anyway? or not?

You see, it doesn’t boil down to evidence, I boils down to you. Having a relationship with God is just basically that, having a relationship. In such mellows, one does not require proof. If you are currently in a loving relationship, or you have real good friends and family whom you love, then maybe you can understand. There are just some things you can’t hold in your hand and say “here it is.”

I’m afraid mundane science cannot enter into that realm. Soz! :(

Those are the most important philosophical questions, because if we disagree on them, we might be just talking to ourselves...

I don’t think so, maybe you should study the works of both theist and atheist scientists, read/hear some scripture, and try and understand what God is, it doesn’t mean you have to accept that He exists, it will just broaden your mind, when in such a discussion.

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
"Creationism Vs. Science", for me, comes down to one thing.

There are those, when watching a magician at work when they are young, go "ooooh, aaaah" and see an event unfolding without any obvious explanation. Some of those kids, however, will say" wow, cool... now, how was that trick done?"

These kids grow up to be, respectively, religious or scientists. Simplified.
 
I always have enjoyed watching David Coperfield and I have to confess- I have no idea how he does his levitation tricks
 
Avatar.....

I always have enjoyed watching David Coperfield and I have to confess- I have no idea how he does his levitation tricks

He is an excellent magician.
From a modern scientific point of veiw, how can you say they are tricks, (when what you see is real), without evidence.

Is it possible to prove that what he performs are tricks?

Just curious. :)

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
Is it possible to prove that what he performs are tricks?
Click to expand...
only if he himself reveals how he does them

and tricks and science is hard to seperate- especially nowadays, when magicians use some heavy equipment


Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
ARTHUR C. CLARKE
 
Hi,
once again,
"Science is an external education, it is there so that we can understand the mechanism of the world around us, our bodies and minds, depending on what branch of science we deal with. Would you agree with that?"

Im glad you asked and not just told, (as you sometimes do). I would agree with everything after the word education. As for the external education part, you might have to define that, because i dont want to draw conclustions.

"Real religion is an internal education, it is there to remind us of our real self, our true identity, and the origin of everything. As you can see, there is a difference between the two subjects, but in actuality they are interconnected. "

again, you have to define internal and external education, but i dont like whats coming... And i can see that they are interconnected in the way that everything is interconnected.

---Einstein explained it thus,
"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13 ---

This was in a time when most people were religios. One is shaped by their time just like I am. To me that doesn't mean much, nor does it remind me of what i think of as einstein. Besides, just because einstein said it, does not mean it is true....
Even if it was less vauge.

--The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened. -- (that was me)

"Here I have to disagree, there are a number of ways we can obtain facts, i.e. from someone or from experience or by accident."

What do you think observation is? An experience is what you observe happening as a result of your actions. Also, an experiment is an observation of what happens when you do certain things. In effect and experience is an unscientific observation. By accident, ... that is a little hard, give an example of accidental learning.

Let me remind you that everything we see learn and sense must come through SOME SORT of input. Weather that INPUT is what YOU call a sence or not is up to you, i guess.

---Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.--- (me)
"I am not disputing that, but there are definitely areas where science cannot be used, don’t you agree?"

Id have to have an example. The purpose of science is to come up with laws that have no exceptions, and though this rarely happens now, we are getting ever closer to it. Where would science not be able to be used?

----You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books. -----
"Surely there would be no need, because you would have already found a fact (hypothetically speaking) which is the point of science."

where would that fact come from? Science uses facts to "proove" hypotheses and theories. These facts are observations. This is the only thing science takes for granted, that your observations are real.

"My understanding of science is “knowledge.” Knowledge incorporates facts. Sometimes it is nesaccery to find evidence for a theory, when the facts are not known, but what is the point of evidence if something is already known?"

Actually, a theory ALWAYS needs evidence, otherwise it is a hypothesis without support. The facts ARE the evidence. The point of evidence is to see weather what people think they know is correct or not. The church knew that the universe revolved around earth, did they not?

"If you cannot find evidence, then does that mean God does not exist?"

If you can't find evidence, you can't draw conclusions at all, in otherwords without proof you can't proove anything.... If i have not evidence that god exists, i won't believe in him. If i have evidence against his existence i will be wary of people who don't recognize the evidence. If there is evidence for god, then i will believe in him as long as the evidence is sound.

"do you then give up believing in God because you could not find any empirical evidence."

I do not see it as giving up, because i was not looking for a god. I just see no reason to believe in a god, because there is no evidence.

---demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian... --
"Why? You were not insulted.
What do you think “demonic” means. "

Why? because christians believe in the devil. I was not insulted because i don't believe in the devil. It is not a word im used to being called, and it is fairly regularly refferenced in old writing as a very bad insult. Demonic - sounds like demon to me....
Must mean of or like the devil, dont you think?

"You say you have much to learn, but you do not consult the vedas, why is this?
Do you already know what “vedas” contains? (nope)
Do you understand the Bible so well, that you do not need it to be explained?

I don't know what the vedas is. If it is something religious, i would think I need to learn what they think, I do know stuff about religions, given that i go to school. I don't have the deepest, most spiritual and anylitical understanding of the bible, because i have not read it, but i have seen parts of it and heard stories from it, but it is not something i consider to have a very high probablitiy of enjoyable reading for me or a high learning experience for me.
I do not need the bible explained, because i don't consider it to be either accurate nor proof of anything. I consider the bible to be a guide to life. Pretty much boils down to, I don't read it because im not religious, and i am not interested.

How can you develop any knowledge, if right from the start you feel you know what is right and what is wrong?
Einstein and Newton, two landmark scientists do not dismiss God, why do you? "

Well, who said we do? And if we do (which i can believe), I wouldn't think that feeling is not amendable....
Einstein and Newton lived in times when most people were religious. As I said before, one is shaped by their time. Just because they made great scientific insights, does not mean they were close to perfect. It does not mean that I should be religious because they are. They had different backgrounds than I have. They grew up with religion, i did not. Why should i not dismiss god?

"But very important questions, questions that have not been sufficiently answered. For us to believe this theory we must be satisfied within ourselves, in fact that goes for belief in anything."

Science is about answering those questions. If there were no questions to answer, we would not need science, not to mention we have far advanced technology.

"That seems rather ironic, as science put those questions there in the first place."

Why ironic, who else is going to answer the questions?

"Amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, they may look similar in some circumstances, but they are different, so really the evidence is so weak it is not worth mentioning.
I’d say that is a desperate shot in the dark."

With this kind of response, i would suspect you don't know as much about the theory as you think. There are not direct transition forms anymore, because they have evolved into something that suited its environment even better, and the transitional form died out. I don't think i can prove the theory of evolution to you if you already think it is a poor theory. That would be something for you to look up more information on.

Evolution is not straght forward, things evolve, things die out, and things evolve more. There might be be a far distant ancestor that we and flys evolved from, but they drew paths so long ago that there is no distinction. I might not say no distinction, the DNA in our bodies is so similar to any creature we can test that it draws the conclution that we and animals must have come from some distant common ancestor. How do you explain that the DNA of humans and an Amoeba are something like 90% similar?

--This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?----

"This is not a question evasion tactic.
Earlier you said you “know” you exist, would it be possible for you to display for all to see, the evidence which allowed you to come to this conlusion?"

Since you didn't answer my question, you did effectively evade the question, so why dont you answer it now?

I 'know' i exist, but it would not be possible for me to display for all to see, the evidence that allowed me to come to that conclusion. The fact that I can see things coming through my eyes, ears, and other sences indicate that i exist. Even if i could connect my brain to someone else, i would be giving them external input and that can all be in the imagination.
Havent you ever heard the famous quote, "i think, therefore I am" - must have been aristotle or somthing

"Where would they have got the tools, the diamonds, pearls and gold. Where would they obtain the mechanisms to construct such tall skyscraper buildings, and such elaborate palaces, which went miles out into the Arabian sea."

Wow, if i had heard about underwater skyscrapers, I would have a whole different outlook on the world. I looked it up real quick and almost none of the articles looked scientific. I've never heard about it. I'm sure that would be the biggest discovery of all time, so I would doubt its existence. Unless you could direct me to a believable information site for it (non-religious based).

"evolution; The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.[/I]

Do you still think it is a theory?"

Im sorry, that is not the theory of evolution, that is the english class dictionary definition of evolution, because, like most words, evolution has more than one implication too. I do still think it is a theory and it is not that definition.
If i were to define it like that i might say the THEORY of evolution is: the act of changing by genectic mutation from parent to child, hence, in the process of changing to suit their environment, as the evolution of a fish from a bacteria, or a bird from a dinosour.

"Do you believe that?
Have you seen the experiment?"

I do, only because it makes sence with my understanding of biology. I have not seen the experiment no. I just heard of it so, although it makes sence to me, it doesn't proove anything.

"in some cases they are extremely necassery, and in some cases they are not enough to come to any concrete conclusions. "

In science, id think they are always neccessary. In some cases the observations do not provide enough support to a hypothesis to effectively proove it. Then either you need a new hypothesis or more information.

"I don’t think it is a case of necessity, it is built into your humanity, in fact into all beings."

Its built into my humanity? Can you proove that it is built into all beings? If you can't it is not a "fact". Sorry if im taking that too literally.

You see, it doesn’t boil down to evidence, I boils down to you. Having a relationship with God is just basically that, having a relationship. In such mellows, one does not require proof. If you are currently in a loving relationship, or you have real good friends and family whom you love, then maybe you can understand. There are just some things you can’t hold in your hand and say “here it is.”

If im in a loving relationship, id be quick to end it if i were having it with an imaginary friend. If I can't provide proof to myself that my partner exists through observation, then i think I can't have a relationship, period. You can't have a relationship with an entity that either does not exist or provides no feed back to you (in otherwords proof that it exists).

"I don’t think so, maybe you should study the works of both theist and atheist scientists, read/hear some scripture, and try and understand what God is, it doesn’t mean you have to accept that He exists, it will just broaden your mind, when in such a discussion. "

Fine fine, but I would greatly doubt YOUR understanding if you can't accept that people have believed in more than one god, and that people currently believe in different gods. The christian god might be different from the puritan god, or the separatist's god. God is not one thing, but a list of different beliefs and religions. I have learned about such things as to have the idea that it is not needed for me to "get to know" one god over another. Why would I believe in your god over another?

Frencheneesz
 
Hi,
once again,
"Science is an external education, it is there so that we can understand the mechanism of the world around us, our bodies and minds, depending on what branch of science we deal with. Would you agree with that?"

Im glad you asked and not just told, (as you sometimes do). I would agree with everything after the word education. As for the external education part, you might have to define that, because i dont want to draw conclustions.

"Real religion is an internal education, it is there to remind us of our real self, our true identity, and the origin of everything. As you can see, there is a difference between the two subjects, but in actuality they are interconnected. "

again, you have to define internal and external education, but i dont like whats coming... And i can see that they are interconnected in the way that everything is interconnected.

---Einstein explained it thus,
"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
_Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium_ (1941) ch. 13 ---

This was in a time when most people were religios. One is shaped by their time just like I am. To me that doesn't mean much, nor does it remind me of what i think of as einstein. Besides, just because einstein said it, does not mean it is true....
Even if it was less vauge.

--The only way we can find facts are through observation, looking and recording what happened. -- (that was me)

"Here I have to disagree, there are a number of ways we can obtain facts, i.e. from someone or from experience or by accident."

What do you think observation is? An experience is what you observe happening as a result of your actions. Also, an experiment is an observation of what happens when you do certain things. In effect and experience is an unscientific observation. By accident, ... that is a little hard, give an example of accidental learning.

Let me remind you that everything we see learn and sense must come through SOME SORT of input. Weather that INPUT is what YOU call a sence or not is up to you, i guess.

---Science does seek out facts, it also seeks out evidence to proove its theories so they might be closer to being facts.--- (me)
"I am not disputing that, but there are definitely areas where science cannot be used, don’t you agree?"

Id have to have an example. The purpose of science is to come up with laws that have no exceptions, and though this rarely happens now, we are getting ever closer to it. Where would science not be able to be used?

----You do not just find a fact laying on the grass and put it into the science books. -----
"Surely there would be no need, because you would have already found a fact (hypothetically speaking) which is the point of science."

where would that fact come from? Science uses facts to "proove" hypotheses and theories. These facts are observations. This is the only thing science takes for granted, that your observations are real.

"My understanding of science is “knowledge.” Knowledge incorporates facts. Sometimes it is nesaccery to find evidence for a theory, when the facts are not known, but what is the point of evidence if something is already known?"

Actually, a theory ALWAYS needs evidence, otherwise it is a hypothesis without support. The facts ARE the evidence. The point of evidence is to see weather what people think they know is correct or not. The church knew that the universe revolved around earth, did they not?

"If you cannot find evidence, then does that mean God does not exist?"

If you can't find evidence, you can't draw conclusions at all, in otherwords without proof you can't proove anything.... If i have not evidence that god exists, i won't believe in him. If i have evidence against his existence i will be wary of people who don't recognize the evidence. If there is evidence for god, then i will believe in him as long as the evidence is sound.

"do you then give up believing in God because you could not find any empirical evidence."

I do not see it as giving up, because i was not looking for a god. I just see no reason to believe in a god, because there is no evidence.

---demonic? hey, i think id be very insulted if I were christian... --
"Why? You were not insulted.
What do you think “demonic” means. "

Why? because christians believe in the devil. I was not insulted because i don't believe in the devil. It is not a word im used to being called, and it is fairly regularly refferenced in old writing as a very bad insult. Demonic - sounds like demon to me....
Must mean of or like the devil, dont you think?

"You say you have much to learn, but you do not consult the vedas, why is this?
Do you already know what “vedas” contains? (nope)
Do you understand the Bible so well, that you do not need it to be explained?

I don't know what the vedas is. If it is something religious, i would think I need to learn what they think, I do know stuff about religions, given that i go to school. I don't have the deepest, most spiritual and anylitical understanding of the bible, because i have not read it, but i have seen parts of it and heard stories from it, but it is not something i consider to have a very high probablitiy of enjoyable reading for me or a high learning experience for me.
I do not need the bible explained, because i don't consider it to be either accurate nor proof of anything. I consider the bible to be a guide to life. Pretty much boils down to, I don't read it because im not religious, and i am not interested.

How can you develop any knowledge, if right from the start you feel you know what is right and what is wrong?
Einstein and Newton, two landmark scientists do not dismiss God, why do you? "

Well, who said we do? And if we do (which i can believe), I wouldn't think that feeling is not amendable....
Einstein and Newton lived in times when most people were religious. As I said before, one is shaped by their time. Just because they made great scientific insights, does not mean they were close to perfect. It does not mean that I should be religious because they are. They had different backgrounds than I have. They grew up with religion, i did not. Why should i not dismiss god?

"But very important questions, questions that have not been sufficiently answered. For us to believe this theory we must be satisfied within ourselves, in fact that goes for belief in anything."

Science is about answering those questions. If there were no questions to answer, we would not need science, not to mention we have far advanced technology.

"That seems rather ironic, as science put those questions there in the first place."

Why ironic, who else is going to answer the questions?

"Amphibians are amphibians, reptiles are reptiles, they may look similar in some circumstances, but they are different, so really the evidence is so weak it is not worth mentioning.
I’d say that is a desperate shot in the dark."

With this kind of response, i would suspect you don't know as much about the theory as you think. There are not direct transition forms anymore, because they have evolved into something that suited its environment even better, and the transitional form died out. I don't think i can prove the theory of evolution to you if you already think it is a poor theory. That would be something for you to look up more information on.

Evolution is not straght forward, things evolve, things die out, and things evolve more. There might be be a far distant ancestor that we and flys evolved from, but they drew paths so long ago that there is no distinction. I might not say no distinction, the DNA in our bodies is so similar to any creature we can test that it draws the conclution that we and animals must have come from some distant common ancestor. How do you explain that the DNA of humans and an Amoeba are something like 90% similar?

--This comes back to the evidence thing, do you have evidence that there IS a supreme authority, or that they have granted that we know where our sences start sucking?----

"This is not a question evasion tactic.
Earlier you said you “know” you exist, would it be possible for you to display for all to see, the evidence which allowed you to come to this conlusion?"

Since you didn't answer my question, you did effectively evade the question, so why dont you answer it now?

I 'know' i exist, but it would not be possible for me to display for all to see, the evidence that allowed me to come to that conclusion. The fact that I can see things coming through my eyes, ears, and other sences indicate that i exist. Even if i could connect my brain to someone else, i would be giving them external input and that can all be in the imagination.
Havent you ever heard the famous quote, "i think, therefore I am" - must have been aristotle or somthing

"Where would they have got the tools, the diamonds, pearls and gold. Where would they obtain the mechanisms to construct such tall skyscraper buildings, and such elaborate palaces, which went miles out into the Arabian sea."

Wow, if i had heard about underwater skyscrapers, I would have a whole different outlook on the world. I looked it up real quick and almost none of the articles looked scientific. I've never heard about it. I'm sure that would be the biggest discovery of all time, so I would doubt its existence. Unless you could direct me to a believable information site for it (non-religious based).

"evolution; The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.[/I]

Do you still think it is a theory?"

Im sorry, that is not the theory of evolution, that is the english class dictionary definition of evolution, because, like most words, evolution has more than one implication too. I do still think it is a theory and it is not that definition.
If i were to define it like that i might say the THEORY of evolution is: the act of changing by genectic mutation from parent to child, hence, in the process of changing to suit their environment, as the evolution of a fish from a bacteria, or a bird from a dinosour.

"Do you believe that?
Have you seen the experiment?"

I do, only because it makes sence with my understanding of biology. I have not seen the experiment no. I just heard of it so, although it makes sence to me, it doesn't proove anything.

"in some cases they are extremely necassery, and in some cases they are not enough to come to any concrete conclusions. "

In science, id think they are always neccessary. In some cases the observations do not provide enough support to a hypothesis to effectively proove it. Then either you need a new hypothesis or more information.

"I don’t think it is a case of necessity, it is built into your humanity, in fact into all beings."

Its built into my humanity? Can you proove that it is built into all beings? If you can't it is not a "fact". Sorry if im taking that too literally.

You see, it doesn’t boil down to evidence, I boils down to you. Having a relationship with God is just basically that, having a relationship. In such mellows, one does not require proof. If you are currently in a loving relationship, or you have real good friends and family whom you love, then maybe you can understand. There are just some things you can’t hold in your hand and say “here it is.”

If im in a loving relationship, id be quick to end it if i were having it with an imaginary friend. If I can't provide proof to myself that my partner exists through observation, then i think I can't have a relationship, period. You can't have a relationship with an entity that either does not exist or provides no feed back to you (in otherwords proof that it exists).

"I don’t think so, maybe you should study the works of both theist and atheist scientists, read/hear some scripture, and try and understand what God is, it doesn’t mean you have to accept that He exists, it will just broaden your mind, when in such a discussion. "

Fine fine, but I would greatly doubt YOUR understanding if you can't accept that people have believed in more than one god, and that people currently believe in different gods. The christian god might be different from the puritan god, or the separatist's god. God is not one thing, but a list of different beliefs and religions. I have learned about such things as to have the idea that it is not needed for me to "get to know" one god over another. Why would I believe in your god over another?

Frencheneesz
 
oops, the stupid thing kept telling me i couldn't post it.

"Is it possible to prove that what he performs are tricks?" Jan

You can't be serious, of course. If he makes something float, you can proove that it is a trick if you have evidence, and the evidence does exist because he had to construct the trick some way.
Just because it seems to be magic does not mean it is.
 
This was in a time when most people were religios.
One is shaped by their time just like I am.

I do see your point, but it wasn’t a religious time and einstein was not religious, he was a scientist of very high caliber. In a real sense, he was an athiest, but not as it is defined in this forum. Though him being a scientist, his goal was to gain knowledge. He came to a point where some theories could not be explained just through scientific method, and understood that there is some other principle at work, possibly a cause. His understanding of God was that He is not personal, but of a different type of energy.

To quote,

"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism...."

So he wasn’t religious, he was a true scientist, in my opinion, a model scientist.

To me that doesn't mean much, nor does it remind me of what i think of as einstein. Besides, just because einstein said it, does not mean it is true....

So you pick and choose what you accept as knowledge, regardless of whether there is knowledge to be found.
Einsteins ideas, all stem ultimately from himself a scientist, to edit bits to suit your mindset is, at the very least an incomplete picture of his self and his work in general.

The point is not to just accept anything he says as truth, but to try and understand why he came to such conclusions, why, although he was a scientist, he believed that there is some sort of god-like entity and why he thought religion and science play an integeral role in the development of knowledge. To dismiss that, as a scientist, seems ignorant.

Even if it was less vauge.

Even more reason to take note.

What do you think observation is?

Observation is to take notice of something, to be aware of something, i.e. observing a sunset.

An experience is what you observe happening as a result of your actions.

I think that is correct, but I believe experience to be far more subtle in some cases, making it sometimes unobservable to that particular person. For example, sound has an effect on us, but we don’t nesaccerily observe either the effect or the reaction.

By accident, ... that is a little hard, give an example of accidental learning.

If one accidently mixes yellow and blue paint, without prior knowledge of the result, they can come to the understanding that yellow mixed with blue becomes green.

It is said that when the apple fell on Newtons head, by accident, it influenced his theories regarding relatiivety, whether that is true or not, it is an example of accidental learning.

Let me remind you that everything we see learn and sense must come through SOME SORT of input.

Yes I agree, the input only comes through our senses.

Where would science not be able to be used?

Science is a tool, and like any other tool it can be used to aid life as well as destroy life, it depends on how it is used.
But it is not life.
A spade can be used to dig a garden nicely which helps the growth of plants and veg, but it cannot become involved with the actual prossess or the cause of their growth, this is already set down.
In short science is the spade (albeit more complex) and the cause of life is the area where science is not needed.


where would that fact come from?

We don’t create facts, they were, are and always will be there, it is our perception that changes, which allows us to see a fact or not.

Science uses facts to "proove" hypotheses and theories.

Yes, I totally agree, that is the business of science, but it is not the only way to obtain facts or truth. A fact is a fact whether it has been proven by scientific research or not. So if only 1 person in the world knows something as fact, and it is a fact, then no matter what anyone says, that person knows that it is a fact. (hypothetically speaking of course)

These facts are observations. This is the only thing science takes for granted, that your observations are real.

Only if it suits the scientific community, if not, then he is not respected as a true scientist.

Actually, a theory ALWAYS needs evidence, otherwise it is a hypothesis without support.

As I said earlier, that is the process and business of science, but it is not the only process of aquiring knowledge. The face of science as changed over the centuries, that is why some say “modern science.”

The facts ARE the evidence. The point of evidence is to see weather what people think they know is correct or not.

So what you are saying is, without evidence, people should scrap what they think they know, that evidence is the only way to know anything?

Have you heard of the “Dogon tribe?”
Do you think the whole thing is a hoax?
Should their offspring, disbelieve there forefathers?

The church knew that the universe revolved around earth, did they not?

The church may have thought that, but the vedas doesn’t, it gives excellent detail of everything. And this knowledge has been passed down for many thousands of years.

If you can't find evidence, you can't draw conclusions at all, in otherwords without proof you can't proove anything....

If you know something, why should you need to prove it, how does that benefit you??

If i have not evidence that god exists, i won't believe in him.

That’s a fair comment, but do you know what you are looking for?

If i have evidence against his existence i will be wary of people who don't recognize the evidence. If there is evidence for

How can you have evidence for or against something, if you don’t really know what the thing is.
Without a shadow of a doubt, knowledge of Gods Supreme Personality is only found in the vedas, knowledge is to be found in all scripture, but not as complete. But you’re not interested in such literature, so how do you know who or what God is. If you say, through the people that said the universe revolved around the earth, then it is little wonder.

Demonic - sounds like demon to me....
Must mean of or like the devil, dont you think?

“Demonic means,” acting against the will of God.

You say,

I don't have the deepest, most spiritual and anylitical understanding of the bible, because i have not read it,

then you say,

I do not need the bible explained, because i don't consider it to be either accurate nor proof of anything.

You sound mixed up, and not even aware of the ethics of a scientist. This is why I say, if you want to become a scientist, then it makes sense to follow in the footsteps of great scientists, past and present.

You say,

I consider the bible to be a guide to life.

Then you say,

I don't read it because im not religious, and i am not interested.

I am not trying to show up your flaws maliciously, I am just try to show how you think, your reasoning.

And if we do (which i can believe), I wouldn't think that feeling is not amendable....

Can’t you honestly see the flaw in that?

Einstein and Newton lived in times when most people were religious.

So you are saying their efforts, including their scientific works are old fashioned and not trendy anymore.

Just because they made great scientific insights, does not mean they were close to perfect.

But they themselves were close to perfect "scientists," wouldn’t you agree?

They grew up with religion, i did not.

Then that is probably why they have a greater insight into science, than modern day scientists.

Why should i not dismiss god?

Because you don’t know whether He exists or not, and if He does, then as a scientist you should explain what you have observed, not only what you have discovered through experiment, but also what you feel inside. It is all part of the one knowledge.

Science is about answering those questions. If there were no questions to answer, we would not need science, not to mention we have far advanced technology.

Science is a lot more than answering questions.
Everything is science, that is what you don’t seem to understand.

What has technology got to do with anything?
Technology is basically more powerful senses, it still has to be under the control of superior intelligence, i.e. man.

I] Why ironic, who else is going to answer the questions?[/I]

Maybe someone who knows the answers. :rolleyes:

Since you didn't answer my question, you did effectively evade the question, so why dont you answer it now?

Come on, I explained my intention.

In you explanation you said you cannot display proof that you exist, but through certain sensations you understand that you exist. In other words it boils down to intelligence. So when in future you ask someone to show evidence of God, remember you cannot even show evidence of yourself, what to speak of God, but you can aqciure knowledge through the senses which are beyond the boundaries of physical proof.

I do, only because it makes sence with my understanding of biology.

Again, because you feel it is right, the fact that you have an understanding of biology may help in your decision, but only you can make the choice. It is the same in all manner of beliefs.

If im in a loving relationship, id be quick to end it if i were having it with an imaginary friend.

That is from your perspective and is fair enough.

You can't have a relationship with an entity that either does not exist or provides no feed back to you (in otherwords proof that it exists).

We are in agreement.

If he makes something float, you can proove that it is a trick if you have evidence, and the evidence does exist because he had to construct the trick some way.

But that is logic without evidence, something you don’t agree with, isn’t it?
At the precise moment you see the woman levitate, you cannot know that the act is a trick, you have to decide for yourself. You either believe instantly, or you use say it has to be a trick, based of the laws of gravity. And even then, unless you know everything you still cannot be sure, but are forced to make a decision, this is reality. The truth is fixed and our perception is flickering, therefore incomplete.

Just because it seems to be magic does not mean it is.

How do you know?
Are you basing that conclusion, on what you know or is it a fact of science.

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
I think i am only going to answer a few points, because our things are getting too long (probably deturing other people from reading). SO ill try to find the most pressing points.

'So you pick and choose what you accept as knowledge, regardless of whether there is knowledge to be found."

Knowlege is an arbitrary subject. It can be right or wrong, and it can be with or without base. I would accept an explanation if the explanation holds to be true with my experiences (observations). So i am not going to believe Einstein just because others take it for granted. I need evidence that what he says is true. The only way i will just choose to believe something without proof is when i feel i can trust the person AND i also feel it doesn't make much difference (as in I dont care). For example, if you tell me an ant is on that peice of grass, I will tend to believe you because I don't exactly think it matters much weather it is true or not. If you said the ant was on a peice of grass a mile away, i would be more sceptical because i have evidence that you can't know that (given that i have evidence that human sight is not that good). Do you get that analogy?

"but to try and understand why he came to such conclusions, why, although he was a scientist, he believed that there is some sort of god-like entity and why he thought religion and science play an integeral role in the development of knowledge." Jan

I can't know everything, so an other important part of being a scientist is to pick and choose what you want to learn about.

"Observation is to take notice of something, to be aware of something, i.e. observing a sunset."

True, true. But i take it more generally to be anything that comes through our sences.

'If one accidently mixes yellow and blue paint, without prior knowledge of the result, they can come to the understanding that yellow mixed with blue becomes green. "

That person needs to use his sences to see that the paint changes.

"In short science is the spade (albeit more complex) and the cause of life is the area where science is not needed."

Weather it is needed or not is of little importants to someone that is interested in it. Science is the quest for knowlege, but it exists, not because it is needed, but because people want it. It is the "need" (ie want) for knowlege that drives science. Of course somepeople are the opposite and are actually scared of change (im not implying anything).

"A fact is a fact whether it has been proven by scientific research or not."

That is true, but we know that they are there. The point of science is to find out why the facts happen (i think ive said this). So we know they are they, therefore we know we can find them.

--These facts are observations. This is the only thing science takes for granted, that your observations are real. --

"Only if it suits the scientific community, if not, then he is not respected as a true scientist. "

?... tell me more about this, i didn't understand.

---Actually, a theory ALWAYS needs evidence, otherwise it is a hypothesis without support. ---

"As I said earlier, that is the process and business of science, but it is not the only process of aquiring knowledge. The face of science as changed over the centuries, that is why some say “modern science.”"

I don't ever remeber when any age of science didn't need some kind of evidence, proof, or explanation for a rule. The church said the world was flat, even though it was wrong, it had a reason. They could plainly see that wherever you stood you would be pulled down. And because they didn't have the understanding of gravity they thought that if it was anything but flat, they would fall off the world.

"So what you are saying is, without evidence, people should scrap what they think they know, that evidence is the only way to know anything?"

Thats the way I think.

"Have you heard of the “Dogon tribe?” "

I haven't, please tell me about them.

"The church may have thought that, but the vedas doesn’t"

I don't know what the vedas is, sorry.

"If you know something, why should you need to prove it, how does that benefit you?"

So other people will believe you. If that isn't important the screw proof. but it is important to me.

"How can you have evidence for or against something, if you don’t really know what the thing is."

It was a hypothetical if. If i did have proof against god's existance, but i don't.

"“Demonic means,” acting against the will of God. "

I can accept that, but I could assume that demons act against god, and therefore someone who is demon-like (demonic) acts against god.

--I don't have the deepest, most spiritual and anylitical understanding of the bible, because i have not read it, --

"then you say, "

--I do not need the bible explained, because i don't consider it to be either accurate nor proof of anything. --

"You sound mixed up, and not even aware of the ethics of a scientist. "

Well, I think i should have said I have not read it completely. I have never read from a bible, but i have read stuff that was taken from a bible. I have enough experience (observations)about what the bible says, and what people think of the bible that i see that reading has a high probability for being boring, and close to useless TO ME. I don't see how i need to read the bible to say that i do not consider it accurate....

--I consider the bible to be a guide to life.--

"Then you say, "

--I don't read it because im not religious, and i am not interested. --

I am not trying to show up your flaws maliciously, I am just try to show how you think, your reasoning.

Sure sure, i know. But i wouldn't be so quick to be certain that they are flaws, you can say you think they are but dont be so certain about an opinion. Don't you think that the bible is a guide to life? The stories, morals, and ethics of the thing all point to being the best way of living, in the opinion of the writer(s). The stories, it seems to me, are to teach a moral, not history. Of course this is only my opinion and the jahovas witnesses can talk about there opinion as much as they want as long as they recognize that it is only an opinion (which many of them fail to realize). Are those supposed to be hypocritical? Id say them agian if they weren't already right there. I am not interested in religion, period. I do not feel the need to believe in a powerful entity, or have a congregation to associate myself with, ..... period.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but that is just how i think. And as much as i would try to be open minded, i do need proof (evidence) over anything. I sincerely believe that I will never believe in god, but you can always try to prove me wrong and ill try to see your point. anyway....

"How can you develop any knowledge, if right from the start you feel you know what is right and what is wrong?"

--And if we do (which i can believe), I wouldn't think that feeling is not amendable.... '--

Can’t you honestly see the flaw in that?

I was saying that the feeling that you know what is right and wrong from the begining is changable. If you think you know everything today, you might learn, tomorrow, that you do not know everything.

I don't know what flaw in that you are talking about.

--Einstein and Newton lived in times when most people were religious. --

"So you are saying their [einstein and newton] efforts, including their scientific works are old fashioned and not trendy anymore."

Well, i didn't say that their work was old fashiond or out of "trend". Im just saying that if they were religious (i don't know about einstein) then the reason would be the time period they lived in. I would hope you are not trying to put words into my mouth on purpose....

"But they themselves were close to perfect "scientists," wouldn’t you agree?"

I could see how they are good scientists, but i would never go so far to say something was perfect unless im exagerating.


---They grew up with religion, i did not. --

"Then that is probably why they have a greater insight into science, than modern day scientists."

What would religion help them with exactly. Im not getting down on religion, but I am down on someones "fact" that religion is good for you. It might be great for some people, but not for others.

Ill split this thing here, it was way longer that i hoped, if you keep your thing down in words i would understand that it is for the shortening of our "things" and not for lack of words.
 
"ll around the city, everywhere i go, something strange is happening, to everyone I know" - Flip City, Glen Frey


--Why should i not dismiss god? "

"Because you don’t know whether He exists or not, and if He does..."

Would you believe in a large creature that ate planets and sweat ice cream that lives in deep space, would you?
I cannot disprove that things existence, you don't know weather he exists or not. So why don't you believe in it? Answer me this. And if you really want to know, my "gut" feeling is that god does not exist.

"Everything is science, that is what you don’t seem to understand."

Please don't throw your opinions at me and say they are fact. At least recognize that they are opinions. Everything is RELATED to science. A cup is not science, but it is related to science in that it obeys the laws of science (or the ideal laws of science, which we have not found). Everything is not science no. Science IS only about answering questions. With these questions we may be able to make more money, go to the moon, or simply understand, but those questions are the only part of science. What you do with science is different.

--Why ironic, who else is going to answer the questions? --

"Maybe someone who knows the answers."

I don't exactly appreciate the sarcasm. What institution would answer questions then science? Someone doesn't know answers, someone thinks they know, and someone has evidence. There is no fact that someone can know for 100% certainty. 99.99999 percent is the limit, although someone can FEEL or THINK that they know it for 100% certainty, there is a difference.

"but you can aqciure knowledge through the senses which are beyond the boundaries of physical proof."

I think of thought as the place where all the sences come together. If thought can be considered a sence that sences the sences (if you see what i mean) then it is also observation. I am the only one that can observe myself think, so i am the only one that can reproduce the simple experiment. "I think, therefore I am". Just the fact that I can look through my sences proves that I exist, but I cannot prove to anyone but myself that I can look through my sences.

"But that is logic without evidence, something you don’t agree with, isn’t it?"

No, it is logic that is based on past evidence.

"And even then, unless you know everything you still cannot be sure, but are forced to make a decision, this is reality. The truth is fixed and our perception is flickering, therefore incomplete."

I could argue with that flickering thing, but why bother? I agree with you here.

There im done, please try to make yours shorter so that we can widdle it down. So someone might be able to stay interested through our entire response. :)
 
Would you believe in a large creature that ate planets and sweat ice cream that lives in deep space, would you?
I cannot disprove that things existence, you don't know weather he exists or not. So why don't you believe in it?

Even if such a creature existed, I would not believe in it, because there is no need.

Please don't throw your opinions at me and say they are fact.

SCIENCE;

Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

Science is . . . a complement of cognitions, having, in point of form, the character of logical perfection, and in point of matter, the character of real truth.

Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena,

Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.

Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained, accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws.

Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.

Don’t get carried away with what you think science is, it is nothing more than a tool with which to acquire truth, knowledge or facts. Everything we do requires knowledge and instruction no matter how basic.

Someone doesn't know answers, someone thinks they know, and someone has evidence

What branch of science taught you this?

…although someone can FEEL or THINK that they know it for 100% certainty,….

How do you know that they don’t know for sure?

but I cannot prove to anyone but myself that I can look through my sences.

But surely that is unscientific. You know you exist but you cannot prove it. Only through applied intelligence. Therefore intelligence is above science (wouldn't you say?). Through intelligence one can understand so many things, of course most of the mundane, physical phenomena can be backed by scientific research, but it is not the research that makes it a fact or truth. And there is more to life than the gross physical.

No, it is logic that is based on past evidence.

OK, that is fair enough.
All I can see and all I have ever seen is life begetting life, so do you think it is safe for me to assume, that this abundance of life known as “the earth” was created by life, based on your point?

So someone might be able to stay interested through our entire response.

Right you are sir!!!! ;)

Love

Jan Ardena.
 
OH GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGOOOOOOOOODDDDD. The message just got erased and i don't feel like retyping it now, ill talk to you later.....
 
Frencheneesz
HEY: ISNT ANYONE ELSE GOING TO TALK.
ILL MAKE THESE POSTS SMALLER I SWEAR!

Okay. I'll take a stab…

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Would you believe in a large creature that ate planets and sweat ice cream that lives in deep space, would you?
I cannot disprove that things existence, you don't know weather he exists or not. So why don't you believe in it?

Even if such a creature existed, I would not believe in it, because there is no need.

This is precisely the feeling many of us have about God. Assuming that God exists, there is no demonstrable interaction between it and us, there is no need for belief. Personally, my consideration is this; If God does exist, it is complete, by definition. Any separation between us and God would simply be an error or illusion of perception. Therefore, there is no need for striving towards a rejoining… Granted, my opinion is heavily influenced by Buddhism. But I find that any "lesser" God to be incomplete…

Science is applied or pure. Applied science is a knowledge of facts, events, or phenomena, as explained, accounted for, or produced, by means of powers, causes, or laws.

Don’t get carried away with what you think science is, it is nothing more than a tool with which to acquire truth, knowledge or facts. Everything we do requires knowledge and instruction no matter how basic.

But surely that is unscientific. You know you exist but you cannot prove it. Only through applied intelligence. Therefore intelligence is above science (wouldn't you say?). Through intelligence one can understand so many things, of course most of the mundane, physical phenomena can be backed by scientific research, but it is not the research that makes it a fact or truth.

We have no absolute truth… in fact there may be no absolute truth. All we have are models that we build based upon experience and data. The model might be religion or a scientific theorem but it is still only a model, not an absolute truth. These models can be examined for their reliability based upon experience. The essential difference between a Theist and an Atheist seems to be simply what basis or method we use to determine this reliability.

All I can see and all I have ever seen is life begetting life, so do you think it is safe for me to assume, that this abundance of life known as “the earth” was created by life, based on your point?

But when we examine what life is we find that we can break it down into physical processes. The entire Universe can be defined most simply by the models of "reality" that we call physics. I believe that you are ascribing some special property to "life" for which there is no evidence.

~Raithere
 
Jan

"Even if such a creature existed, I would not believe in it, because there is no need. "

If you knew that the creature existed, what is the point of disbelieving it? There is no need for many things, in fact need is an opinion in the sence you put it in. Someone could argue that random asteroids in space are -needed- for some vauge reason like because they complete the universe, or we could say that life is needed for another arbitrary reason like because it is more organized.
Why is there a need for a god? The big bang theory explains it just as well (i think), there is at least as much proof for the big bang as there is for god, and the same question arises for both: what happened before God/The big Bang?

"How do you know that they don’t know for sure?"

That all works on your definition of "know" and "for sure". My definition for know is something that we believe to be true, and for "for sure" is something that we believe to be true without doubt (mostly the same thing). With this someone can know for sure and still be wrong.

"You know you exist but you cannot prove it. "

I can prove it just as well as I can prove anything, if you see me you can infer that I exist, but of course you could be halucinating.....

Just one more question: Do you believe in the bible as fact?
 
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
and the same question arises for both: what happened before God/The big Bang?

No it doesn't. It only arises with the question of the big bang.

With this someone can know for sure and still be wrong.

All that means is they didn't know for sure, they only thought they did.

I can prove it just as well as I can prove anything, if you see me you can infer that I exist, but of course you could be halucinating.....

As i said, it boils down to intelligence. In the same way, one can prove the existence of God, but it differs according to the intelligence of the individual.

I can of course perceive that you exist, as you can perceive my existence, but to prove it in a modern scientific way is impossible, as you have demonstrated (unless of course you can prove to me you exist)

Just one more question: Do you believe in the bible as fact?

I see no reason to doubt its credibility as far as my understanding of the book is concerned.

When you say believe "in" the bible, what do you mean.

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Jan Ardena
What do you think the Absolute Truth is.

Something quite beyond the perception and probably beyond the comprehension of any intelligence existing in our 4 dimensional MST.

When you say believe "in" the bible, what do you mean.

Who are you? Bill Clinton?

~Raithere
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top