Varg

[Varg]

Because apparently my beliefs mean that I'm not worthy to use many features of this site.

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='Varg' date='14 November 2009 - 09:04 AM' timestamp='1258211095' post='2002599']
Because apparently my beliefs mean that I'm not worthy to use many features of this site.
[/quote]

You're serious?
A non-reply will be considered a yes, so as
not to rock the boat and I will drop it.

[Varg]

Yep. I can't rate posts, rate threads, view profiles, comment on profiles or use the PM system

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='14 November 2009 - 12:37 AM' timestamp='1258180662' post='2002546']
I don't see any difference. I've been inside the Australian synchrotron. If you went in there with me would you believe that a beam of electrons is being accelerated to near light speed and materials are being probed to molecular level by synchrotron radiation. I believe it, yet I never saw any evidence that that is what was happening. I have only the reasoning that governments wouldn't be spending money and scientists wouldn't be saying this is what is happening if it were not. If I go to the Church I sense a presence and I have several hundred people around me that are there because of similar reasons. The logic and the conclusions are very similar. Some people might even choose to accept science as a religion because it is more appealing to them than a main stream religion. I however prefer to believe that science has God as it's creator.
[/quote]
Again, there is a difference. What you saw can be proven, in the end, with the methods of science. Just because it wasn't proven to you then and there doesn't mean it's proof-less. God can't be proven, not until you're dead, at least. And no one can come back from death to tell us.

[Guest Jon]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='14 November 2009 - 10:58 AM' timestamp='1258217908' post='2002629']
Again, there is a difference. What you saw can be proven, in the end, with the methods of science. Just because it wasn't proven to you then and there doesn't mean it's proof-less. God can't be proven, not until you're dead, at least. And no one can come back from death to tell us.
[/quote]
Not unless you consider NDE's.

Sorry, Near Death Experiences. So many have talked with Jesus and
He sent them back -it wasn't their time. But, even then people don't believe them.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Jon' date='14 November 2009 - 11:05 AM' timestamp='1258218315' post='2002630']
Not unless you consider NDE's.

Sorry, Near Death Experiences. So many have talked with Jesus and
He sent them back -it wasn't their time. But, even then people don't believe them.
[/quote]
That's because of the overwhelming evidence about what the brain does during death. I mentioned earlier in another thread, I'm not likely to believe a randomly firing brain of a dying person, no more than I'm going to believe someone's dream and take that as fact.

[Varg]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

Edited November 14, 2009 by Varg

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='13 November 2009 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1258174380' post='2002501']
The thing about that is that yes, in the world we see around us, the logic applies that X causes Y which can't happen without Z. But at a subatomic level, we are only beginning to scratch the surface of things that don't follow traditional laws of Physics. There isn't any way to show that the universe must have necessarily been created X way or that it couldn't have happened without Y. And without that certainty, I'd rather place my confidence with science that follows some kind of methodology than a religion that bases it's entire existence upon things that existed millennia ago and has only writings and hearsay to base it's decisions upon.
[/quote]

Sure. I think I follow...but there seems to be some circular reasoning in what you are saying. Are you suggesting that science on a subatomic level can break the laws of logic? If this is so, then the method is vain.
That it is possible for something to come from nothing is evident both for an atheist and a Christian...the reason why is not. I fail to see the rationality in presuming that an "I don't know but not that" as the intellectually plausible assumption that God probably doesn't exist. Can this breech in the laws of physics be such that any law of physics be breeched?

[T-Bone _]

Varg can't do PMs because he earned an "I don't rep the Pope" tag.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='14 November 2009 - 12:38 PM' timestamp='1258223928' post='2002673']
Sure. I think I follow...but there seems to be some circular reasoning in what you are saying. Are you suggesting that science on a subatomic level can break the laws of logic? If this is so, then the method is vain.
That it is possible for something to come from nothing is evident both for an atheist and a Christian...the reason why is not. I fail to see the rationality in presuming that an "I don't know but not that" as the intellectually plausible assumption that God probably doesn't exist. Can this breech in the laws of physics be such that any law of physics be breeched?
[/quote]
I'm not saying that science on a subatomic level breaks logic, I'm saying that it sometimes breaks the laws of physics as we know them or how we assume things are supposed to work. The thing is that since science is based on human understanding, it isn't perfect and it's always changing.

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='13 November 2009 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1258174380' post='2002501']
I'd rather place my confidence with science that follows some kind of methodology
[/quote]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='14 November 2009 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1258225162' post='2002682']
The thing is that since science is based on human understanding, it isn't perfect and it's always changing.
[/quote]

[Varg]

At least science changes, religion shuns change.

[Servus_Mariae]

[quote name='Varg' date='14 November 2009 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1258228085' post='2002700']
At least science changes, religion shuns change.
[/quote]

umm..okay?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='13 November 2009 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1258165640' post='2002443']
The examples you use can easily be proven to be true. You can seek out the proper proof that the house was built by someone, or that someone spelled out "HELP." What you cannot prove is that God had anything to do with DNA. You can work that idea into your logic and make a story of how it could have happened, but in the end, you can't prove any of what you speculate.[/quote]

Can they? You happen on a island that no longer has any one on it. No further proof what so ever that there ever was anyone there save for the rocks that spell out "HELP" you would logically reason that an intelligence put the rocks in that position. With no empirical evidence whatsoever. Your logic is simply not consistent, just be honest about it.

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='13 November 2009 - 09:27 PM' timestamp='1258165640' post='2002443']Thanks for that grossly inaccurate generalization. I don't "pick and choose" my logic to draw conclusions out of hate. I don't hate Christianity, I don't hate your god. But if you need to believe that atheists are hateful and mean to sleep better at night, go for it.
[/quote]

Yes, you do pick and choose your logic. I could have sworn you just recently posted a thread in which you stated you hated Christians or something to that nature. Atheists do have a lot of bitter hateful resentment, that's just a fact. Sorry buddy.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Servus_Mariae' date='14 November 2009 - 01:44 PM' timestamp='1258227846' post='2002698']

[/quote]
I place my confidence in something with a defined methodology, even if it is imperfect. No one is saying it is. That contrasts with religion which claims to understand the world perfectly but offers no solid proof of anything it claims. Call me a humanist. I believe humans can figure out the world and make it work, to the extent that they are able to with the minds we have.