|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 4, 2023 0:56:59 GMT
According to the Jewish Learning Institute
|
|
|
|
Post by MCDemuth on Jan 4, 2023 1:03:59 GMT
Science has proven that God exists, because Science has shown that our universe is too complex and too perfect to have been created at random...
Calculous, Physics, and String Theory... Random Creations? BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 4, 2023 3:27:10 GMT
Can you give a summary so I can decide if I want to watch it? The thumbnail isn't enticing.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 4, 2023 3:57:45 GMT
Can you give a summary so I can decide if I want to watch it? The thumbnail isn't enticing. It's not that long (less than 4 minutes). |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 4, 2023 7:45:22 GMT
That’s like saying there’s a clash between Major League Baseball and National Hockey League. Or like more between the New York Knicks and the New York City Philharmonic. A clash over taste and city funding, maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 4, 2023 7:55:02 GMT
Science has proven that God exists, because Science has shown that our universe is too complex and too perfect to have been created at random... Calculous, Physics, and String Theory... Random Creations? BS. Science has NOT proven that God exists because science doesn't investigate the supernatural. In fact, science is based on the principle of naturalism, which assumes that only the natural world and the natural laws can be investigated scientifically. Moreover, complexity is irrelevant because complexity is not a hallmark of design; simplicity is! There is nothing inherently "perfect" about the universe - as perfection is relative with respect to a goal. Science also doesn't claim that it was "created at random" so it's a straw argument on top of all of the other fallacies. The notion that the universe was created by an intelligent designer is not rooted in any cosmological model of the universe. Creationism is pseudoscience! |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 4, 2023 7:56:46 GMT
Can you give a summary so I can decide if I want to watch it? The thumbnail isn't enticing. It's not that long (less than 4 minutes). And yet it's still NOT enticing because that would be 4 minutes of my life that I can't get back. So why should we invest that 4 minutes? Throw us a bone here! What is the point you're trying to make? |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 4, 2023 8:06:18 GMT
It's not that long (less than 4 minutes). And yet it's still NOT enticing because that would be 4 minutes of my life that I can't get back. So why should we invest that 4 minutes? Throw us a bone here! What is the point you're trying to make? I guess she thinks the Jewish Learning Institute is right about Creation, but wrong about Jesus. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2023 13:57:41 GMT
What clash between science and religion? A Catholic priest gave the world the now widely scientifically accepted big bang theory. He taught it to Albert Einstein.  |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 4, 2023 15:07:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 4, 2023 19:47:49 GMT
It's not that long (less than 4 minutes). So why should we invest that 4 minutes? Throw us a bone here! What is the point you're trying to make? So sue me. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jan 4, 2023 20:04:14 GMT
Science has proven that God exists, because Science has shown that our universe is too complex and too perfect to have been created at random... Calculous, Physics, and String Theory... Random Creations? BS. Well that's a plain out lie. |
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Jan 5, 2023 2:16:50 GMT
Is this clash as good as the one between Godzilla and Hedorah?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 2:34:01 GMT
Science has NOT proven that God exists because science doesn't investigate the supernatural. Ahem. Pardon me for interrupting, but I'd like to challenge the presumption: Who says God is supernatural? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 5, 2023 18:40:18 GMT
Science has NOT proven that God exists because science doesn't investigate the supernatural. Ahem. Pardon me for interrupting, but I'd like to challenge the presumption: Who says God is supernatural? That would be the overwhelming majority of Christians, Muslims, and Jews who spend any time proselytizing. I can give you specific examples if you’d like. But to come more to the point…I take it that you are among the few who are proposing a god that is not the creator of nature, but rather exists as part of nature?  |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 5, 2023 19:17:05 GMT
Science has NOT proven that God exists because science doesn't investigate the supernatural. Ahem. Pardon me for interrupting, but I'd like to challenge the presumption: Who says God is supernatural? Because there is no way to prove God is of the natural world of all the “elements” that make up the entirety of the universe. Since there is no evidence, there is nothing to quantify. Nothing to quantify, then no hard research science can happen. Philosophy takes over at this point, it’s intellectual, but it’s not science and cannot prove God is a part of the natural world. The conundrum for theists is they think science should be able to prove God exists, and if it doesn’t, then either there is something wrong with the science or scientists are lying because they do not want to obey God. One problem is the lack of knowledge of what science is and how it works. Another is harboring a profound prejudice against atheists or spiritual non-conformists. |
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Jan 5, 2023 20:27:41 GMT
Can you give a summary so I can decide if I want to watch it? The thumbnail isn't enticing. It's not that long (less than 4 minutes). So you didn't watch it either, probably. Pass. Here's the clash... religion is irrational, science is rational. Once you accept the irrational as rational you are intellectually compromised and can be made to believe any nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 5, 2023 20:32:33 GMT
It's not that long (less than 4 minutes). So you didn't watch it either, probably. Pass. Here's the clash... religion is irrational, science is rational. Once you accept the irrational as rational you are intellectually compromised and can be made to believe any nonsense. Yes I did watch it. That's how I know it was under 4 minutes. Compares science taking things apart to religion putting things back together, quoting the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2023 23:42:33 GMT
Ahem. Pardon me for interrupting, but I'd like to challenge the presumption: Who says God is supernatural? Because there is no way to prove God is of the natural world of all the “elements” that make up the entirety of the universe. Since there is no evidence, there is nothing to quantify. Nothing to quantify, then no hard research science can happen. Philosophy takes over at this point, it’s intellectual, but it’s not science and cannot prove God is a part of the natural world. The conundrum for theists is they think science should be able to prove God exists, and if it doesn’t, then either there is something wrong with the science or scientists are lying because they do not want to obey God. One problem is the lack of knowledge of what science is and how it works. Another is harboring a profound prejudice against atheists or spiritual non-conformists. Are you saying God is supernatural because there's no evidence of its existence? Funny how when we see something that appears to violate natural law, we embrace the possibility that we're wrong about the law. But when we see something that appears to match what most would call God, we reject it on the basis that it doesn't square with natural law. Are you not aware the science doesn't prove anything? Oversimplified, the Scientific Method is a way to create theories based on hypotheses that we can't refute. In other words, if it can't be disproven, it remains a valid possibility. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 6, 2023 0:17:42 GMT
Oversimplified, the Scientific Method is a way to create theories based on hypotheses that we can't refute. I don’t think that's true. A scientific hypothesis that was irrefutable would be quite useless. What would be the point of testing such a hypothesis? |
|
