God and the Devil

[Wisdom_Seeker]

"Main Entry: preach

Etymology: Middle English prechen, from Anglo-French precher, from Late Latin praedicare, from Latin, to proclaim, make known, from prae- pre- + dicare to proclaim -- more at DICTION
intransitive verb
1 : to deliver a sermon
2 : to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner
transitive verb
1 : to set forth in a sermon <preach the gospel>
2 : to advocate earnestly <preached revolution>
3 : to deliver (as a sermon) publicly
4 : to bring, put, or affect by preaching <preached the...church out of debt -- American Guide Series: Virginia>"
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/preach

I deliver a sermon about God. You deliver a sermon about atheism.

3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
(Matthew 7:3-5)

OOps thats right, you don´t believe in Jesus, shhhhhhhhhhhhh.

 

[SkinWalker]

"The funny thing about that little white speck on the top of chicken shit. That little white speck is chicken shit too." (Ernest Tucker, Pure Country 1992)

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

"The funny thing about that little white speck on the top of chicken shit. That little white speck is chicken shit too." (Ernest Tucker, Pure Country 1992)

So you are saying that if you have a chicken shit speck in your own eye, you are chicken shit too?

 

[SkinWalker]

I'm saying that one can quote whatever: mythology, fiction, encyclopedias... one can always find a favorable, yet cherry-picked quote of scripture that one believes relevant, but your doesn't change the fact that you are borderline preaching -an issue I've already addressed in the past.

There is no such animal as "preaching atheism" since atheism is a condition brought on by rationalism associated with scientific naturalism. Most atheists are scientific naturalists first, accepting the world as they find it rather than inventing supernatural and magical mumbo-jumbo to explain the unknown. They arrive at the condition of atheism through logical thought and rational perspective on the world.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

I'm saying that one can quote whatever: mythology, fiction, encyclopedias... one can always find a favorable, yet cherry-picked quote of scripture that one believes relevant, but your doesn't change the fact that you are borderline preaching -an issue I've already addressed in the past.

There is no such animal as "preaching atheism" since atheism is a condition brought on by rationalism associated with scientific naturalism. Most atheists are scientific naturalists first, accepting the world as they find it rather than inventing supernatural and magical mumbo-jumbo to explain the unknown. They arrive at the condition of atheism through logical thought and rational perspective on the world.

Science and God go hand by hand man. God is just something that Science has not yet proved, or they have, but not from your perspective.

 

[SkinWalker]

Just because science hasn't "proved" something doesn't mean that it eventually will. I'm not holding my breath for science to "prove" (science doesn't really "prove" by the way, it offers evidence-based explanations) Elvis is still alive or that there's a monster in Loch Ness. Moreover, science really has not a care about gods unless we're talking about the social sciences. Gods have no bearing whatever on scientific discovery or investigation. It is, indeed, religion, that is bent out of shape about science and concerned with science dispelling its superstitions and paranormal delusions.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Just because science hasn't "proved" something doesn't mean that it eventually will. I'm not holding my breath for science to "prove" (science doesn't really "prove" by the way, it offers evidence-based explanations) Elvis is still alive or that there's a monster in Loch Ness. Moreover, science really has not a care about gods unless we're talking about the social sciences. Gods have no bearing whatever on scientific discovery or investigation. It is, indeed, religion, that is bent out of shape about science and concerned with science dispelling its superstitions and paranormal delusions.

Initially in our mother´s womb, at the embryo stage, all the cells are the same, and have the potential to differentiate in any kind of cell. But during "differentiation" process they acquire specific receptors on their membranes, and become specialized to perform a function. Some become skin, some become nails, some become bones, some become brain cells, some becomes genitals...

That is the scientific explanation of this phenomena, from conception to human, I just laugh, I mean, "differentiation" hehe. Science will NEVER prove how does this happens, they can only state what they are seeing.

Or how does a seed become a huge tree?
" When a seed becomes a tree, there is no violation to the law of entropy because the seed contains a directing genetic code and very highly complex biological mechanisms to overcome entropy so that a seed can evolve into a fully developed tree. In other words, the development of seed to tree is not a spontaneous (or chance) event. The question is how did biological life and order come into existence in the first place when there was no directing code and mechanism for overcoming entropy."

Whoever does not see the Tao 道/logos/existence/Dharma or God in these things is only in denial of himself.

Science has already prove God, a lot of scientists believe in God, because they are scientists.

 

[SkinWalker]

That is the scientific explanation of this phenomena, from conception to human, I just laugh, I mean, "differentiation" hehe. Science will NEVER prove how does this happens, they can only state what they are seeing.

Your cynicism and ignorance on the topic are both saddening but indicative of a broader problem with public understanding of science and how science works. Researchers have more evidence for the "why" and the "how" associated with the process than you probably know and are very close to using this knowledge in a manner that will allow for significant discovery in fields of cancer research, curing Parkinson's, regenerating new organs and tissues, and so on. I would recommend looking at some of the primary literature, but I agree that there is an incomplete understanding of stem cell development and growth. There is, however, no reason to believe that "science will never" understand how it happens.

Also, as I've stated previously, science isn't about "proving," its about finding the best possible explanations, each of which are conditional and tentative until new and improved data and understanding are arrived at.

If you're going to offer critique on the methods and limitations of science, it might help to first educate yourself on the topic since your criticisms will have more authority and show a better grasp of the topic.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

If you're going to offer critique on the methods and limitations of science, it might help to first educate yourself on the topic since your criticisms will have more authority and show a better grasp of the topic.

Ok, give me just one link or book reference on this explanation, and I shall take it from there.

And you are mostly correct, science can only look at the phenomena, but it cannot create the phenomena. Just like we can only "look" at the changes of our body, but not create them, like getting old and dying. We can only "look" at these things.

The fact is that is the existence that creates this things.

 

[Kumar]

Just because science hasn't "proved" something doesn't mean that it eventually will. I'm not holding my breath for science to "prove" (science doesn't really "prove" by the way, it offers evidence-based explanations) Elvis is still alive or that there's a monster in Loch Ness. Moreover, science really has not a care about gods unless we're talking about the social sciences. Gods have no bearing whatever on scientific discovery or investigation. It is, indeed, religion, that is bent out of shape about science and concerned with science dispelling its superstitions and paranormal delusions.

Science could yet describe four fundamental forces and elementary particles, but one mother of these is yet pending to describe...one "prime force" to all forces and particles. Though indicated as indescribable by commons, still when it will be known in science, all confusions can be over. As such, it can have omni...properties. Let us pray and wait for this understanding by science. Till then, one can just express "as per current status of science", which is neither absolute(free from imperfection) nor final. So you can't base absolutely and finally on non-absulute and incomplete understandings.

Whether prevailing science indications are "absolute and final"?????

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Science could yet describe four fundamental forces and elementary particles, but one mother of these is yet pending to describe...one "prime force" to all forces and particles. Though indicated as indescribable by commons, still when it will be known in science, all confusions can be over. As such, it can have omni...properties. Let us pray and wait for this understanding by science. Till then, one can just express "as per current status of science", which is neither absolute(free from imperfection) nor final. So you can't base absolutely and finally on non-absulute and incomplete understandings.

Whether prevailing science indications are "absolute and final"?????

Science is now stuck with quantum physics, no limitations there, no definite answers.

 

[Hapsburg]

*************
M*W: I understand we share a common ancestor, but I was under the impression that it wasn't homo neanderthalis. They branched off like a cousin or something.

Yeah. Our nearest ancestors to the Neanderthals were the Homo erectus.
Most likely, we wiped the neanderthals off the face of the planet. Some think we bred with them en masse, but I think that was minimal in reality.

Our oldest connection to the Chimpanzees (our closest living ancestors) is the now-extinct Sahelanthropus tchadensis, which went extinct some 7 million years ago.

 

[Photizo]

It is, indeed, religion, that is bent out of shape about science and concerned with science dispelling its superstitions and paranormal delusions.

:yawn: I don't think so

Which religion? Certainly not the religion whose builder and maker is God...whose Founder declares the very gates of hell shall not prevail against it...ironically, there's plenty of evidence--unwittingly provided by the likes of you--indicating who's really "concerned" with having their "superstitions and paranormal delusions" dispelled--along with their 'gates' crashed...