Why worship an imperfect God?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
Give me a bit of time and I'll come up with a nonsensical answer any theist would be proud of.
wow mw...your slip is showing. yeah, i can see now why you think you're such a "good" person and your way is the answer for us all. but all kidding aside...stop stalking me and stick to the topic at hand. you don't have to follow me around this forum like you do so if you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. i was just being honest with you.
i like how people protect and advocate their own religion, despite the number of religions and sects to choose from. i'd love to be religious, it makes life so easy for you, all these answers that you never need to question, i just can't find any sects that aren't full of shit.
just as a little pre-emptive reply culling, i know religious people are allowed to question their religion, but reading a single book isn't questioning something. believing in religion is easy, cos all you have to do is believe. "those who do not believe, will never understand" - saint augustine. take a step back, and ask if you really believe in a magic man in the sky, and a fiery man in the dirt, and lots of people with little wings on their back flying around.
christianity was only made hundreds of years ago. is the rest of humanity in hell? which sects of christianity go to hell? is it really fair to send people to hell just cos they don't wanna be with god? is lucifer really such a bad guy, or does god just dislike him too? isn't the bible the word of god anyway? kinda biased in my opinion. that'll do me for now lol.
just as a little pre-emptive reply culling, i know religious people are allowed to question their religion, but reading a single book isn't questioning something. believing in religion is easy, cos all you have to do is believe. "those who do not believe, will never understand" - saint augustine. take a step back, and ask if you really believe in a magic man in the sky, and a fiery man in the dirt, and lots of people with little wings on their back flying around.
christianity was only made hundreds of years ago. is the rest of humanity in hell? which sects of christianity go to hell? is it really fair to send people to hell just cos they don't wanna be with god? is lucifer really such a bad guy, or does god just dislike him too? isn't the bible the word of god anyway? kinda biased in my opinion. that'll do me for now lol.
i don't believe in a magic man in the sky, but i do believe in god.
Some people say that to believe in your own self potential is to believe in God.
Some people also say that to "know" your own self potential is to "know" God
"Do believe I can ride a bicycle?"
"Or do I know I can ride a bicycle?"
"Do I believe I can fly to the moon using a space craft?"
"Or do I know I can fly to the moon using a space craft?"
Some people also say that to "know" your own self potential is to "know" God
"Do believe I can ride a bicycle?"
"Or do I know I can ride a bicycle?"
"Do I believe I can fly to the moon using a space craft?"
"Or do I know I can fly to the moon using a space craft?"
Last edited:
so you're not christian, jewish or muslim?
What I said about popper is the consequences
If science is only about falsification (popper's right claim), then it is not about truth but about falsity
No, it's a question of regarding scientific knowledge as provisional and always subject to falsification. There is no inference to be made that it IS false, which is what you are doing. If you are waiting for the law of gravity to be falsified, you may have a long wait on your hands.
No such strict rule is applied to religious thought which is why there is so much nonsense based on nothing more than assumptions and speculation.
Do not expect any sensible answers from religious people. The only questions most of them ask about their holy books is how a passage should be interpreted; hence the multiplicity of sects. They never question the validity of the book as a whole; they take it for granted that it contains the word of god.
I did not say it is false!
I say that science because of the fact that it can only do falsification, the scientific statement can only be about falsity.
In other words, science cannot prove anything true, it can only prove something to be false.
yeah and just because something is not proved to be false doesn't make it a truth...either!...
right! except if you prove its impossibility to be proved false
science can prove things to be true, science proves fire needs oxygen. what else would you call that knowledge? are you implying science offers no truths, but religion does? ironic how something with arguably so little evidence and so many flaws deals with the absolute truth.
I think we have a language problem. Let's call it a day ! But consider, if we make decisions on the basis of established, i.e., non-falsified facts we can get positive results, which is something you are overlooking.
You have been given and example of oxygen and fire. In what sense is that a false scientific statenment ? Remove the source of oxygen and the fire goes out. That's a fact. So the statement that fire needs oxygen is a true statement. It's opposite has been shown to be false in this case.
Do you honestly believe that what we say about gravity is false ? Act as if it is true, think of space exploration, and you will have all the evidence you need. Or should that be all that any reasonable person will need. Try falsifying it by jumping off a tall building !
You are adopting a dog-in-the manger attitude for reasons best known to yourself.
Last edited:
if i understand your logic correctly, you are saying science cannot prove something to be true, because we can never understand every possible factor. with my fire needs oxygen example, perhaps we haven't discovered the substitute for oxygen yet. therefore we cannot be certain that fire needs oxygen.
what science can provide is the statement that at the moment, fire has never been witnessed to exist without oxygen. this is a truth which science has provided.
what science can provide is the statement that at the moment, fire has never been witnessed to exist without oxygen. this is a truth which science has provided.
It is not because it never happened that it will never happen.
This is the problem of induction:
We get only few data and to say that it represent reality can be denied when we will get more data
The truth is then only about observation:
the fact that we never observed fire without oxygen is true but we cannot conclude that we will never do.
Also, because we cannot know that we are dreaming or not (please create another thread or see the thread about atheist realism for arguing about that), all our statement can be wrong. even about what is false!
So the so called atheist and the so called theist have the same problem
But we can agree that we are not dreaming or that we want to study the dream world
in this case science can tell us about false statement but not about true generalization (because of induction problem) ,
only observation can be said to be true which is obvious if we assume that we are not dreaming and which is ok if we agree that we study the dream world (which is in fact maybe the true world anyway)
This is the problem of induction:
We get only few data and to say that it represent reality can be denied when we will get more data
The truth is then only about observation:
the fact that we never observed fire without oxygen is true but we cannot conclude that we will never do.
Also, because we cannot know that we are dreaming or not (please create another thread or see the thread about atheist realism for arguing about that), all our statement can be wrong. even about what is false!
So the so called atheist and the so called theist have the same problem
But we can agree that we are not dreaming or that we want to study the dream world
in this case science can tell us about false statement but not about true generalization (because of induction problem) ,
only observation can be said to be true which is obvious if we assume that we are not dreaming and which is ok if we agree that we study the dream world (which is in fact maybe the true world anyway)
Last edited: