There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

SciWriter said:
OK, I finally got the dollar in the mail.

This thread has been moving fast, yet no proof of God has been forthcoming.

It’s bad enough that people propose ‘God’ out of nowhere, and then even worser that they then preach ‘God’ as truth and fact, and while this goes nowhere as even a notion, much less a theory, they still preach it, and that’s why I’m providing a disproof of the Guy even in lieu of anyone not being able to prove Him.

Disproof:
This Guy who supposedly does planning and creation is still a system of mind, and is thus not fundamental at all, since something had to come before Him, such as the parts of His composite complexity, which He would therefore be dependent on for His existence. If the notion of Him being fundamental is dropped, then all one has is a smart life form—an alien, and not a God at all.

Any hand-waving, magical proclamations as proof of the Guy? Don’t bother, for those are not even close to good enough.
Click to expand...


I don't recognise this "Guy" you regard as God.
Scriptural references please?

thanks
jan.
 
spidergoat said:
Theologians made up this "spiritual realm" specifically to avoid logical analysis.
Click to expand...

Saying they did so is bad faith, an uncharitable interpetation.

Perhaps they did make it up, perhaps they didn't. We don't know that.


But if any communication is approached in bad faith, if the other party is interpreted in an uncharitable manner, then there will likely soon be irreconcilable conflict and bad blood.

Much of the theistic debate is actually the undecidable, illogical derailments due to bad faith, by one or both parties.
 
I think they made it up because early astronomy did not show the heavens as people expected from scripture.
 
Jan Ardena said:
I don't recognise this "Guy" you regard as God.
Scriptural references please?

thanks
jan.
Click to expand...

You conveniently forgot to refute the disproof of the Guy called 'God'.

If your God didn't make everything as said in, say, Genesis, then tell me how He differs.

Also, where is your proof? You don't have one. Thread over.
 
SciWriter said:
You conveniently forgot to refute the disproof of the Guy called 'God'.

If your God didn't make everything as said in, say, Genesis, then tell me how He differs.

Also, where is your proof? You don't have one. Thread over.
Click to expand...


I didn't recognise "Guy".
Any references?


What do you mean by "proof"?
Proof of what?


Are you a moderator?
NO?
Then shut up with regards the thread being over.

jan.
 
Jan:

'Guy' is 'God'. That's why it was capitalized.

Proof? Proof of 'God'.

Are you playing dumb in lieu of being able to refute the disproof?
 
I don't demand proof, only some evidence that doesn't amount to just, "...some guy said this...".
 
Jan could not answer; nor the seas that mourn
In flowing purple, of their Lord forlorn;
Nor rolling heaven, with all his signs reveal’d
And hidden by the sleeve of night and morn.

— Omar revised
 
Spirituality has to do with one's subjective experience of the world and what it all means, your role and purpose in life (or absence of it). To assert that these subjective experiences trump science is quite absurd.
 
Jan Ardena said:
SciWriter,
I can't prove anything. Can you?
Click to expand...

Already disproved 'God' in the post that "Jan could not answer, nor the seas that mourn," etc. ('Lord' means 'God' in that Omar quatrain)

So, we have a disproof of 'God' and zero proofs of 'God'. Game over.
 
SciWriter said:
Already disproved 'God' in the post that "Jan could not answer, nor the seas that mourn," etc. ('Lord' means 'God' in that Omar quatrain)

So, we have a disproof of 'God' and zero proofs of 'God'. Game over.
Click to expand...


Jan could not answer; nor the seas that mourn
In flowing purple, of their Lord forlorn;
Nor rolling heaven, with all his signs reveal’d
And hidden by the sleeve of night and morn.

— Omar revised
Click to expand...

LOL!!!
You call that proof?

jan.
 
Yazata said:
I feel (it's kind of intuitive) that the question why reality exists at all, why there's something rather than nothing, is the ultimate ontological question.
Click to expand...

That can be easily answered, and it will point to yet another disproof of God, but we don't need it, for we have the great one that I posted.

There will be no charge this time. All you have to do is ask.

Hint: Can there be an infinite regress of somethings making somethings? If so, how? If not, what does that imply? Etc., and then go even further if something is said to have been around forever without ever having been defined as such (like its total amount or its defined form, size, properties, location, charge, and more).
 
Jan, don't pretend. It said the post that… Jan could not answer (and still can't).

Plus, you even referenced it once. Here it is again, for the 'neglectful':

Disproof:
This Guy who supposedly does planning and creation is still a system of mind, and is thus not fundamental at all, since something had to come before Him, such as the parts of His composite complexity, which He would therefore be dependent on for His existence. If the notion of Him being fundamental is dropped, then all one has is a smart life form—an alien, and not a God at all.

Any hand-waving, magical proclamations as proof of the Guy? Don’t bother, for those are not even close to good enough.
 
Jan still could not answer; nor the seas that mourn
In flowing purple, of their Lord forlorn;
Nor rolling heaven, with all his signs reveal’d
And hidden by the sleeve of night and morn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top