Haha, yeah.

Try sending me a message using "Faith messenger", see how that works out.

(March 13, 2016 at 11:03 am)robvalue Wrote: Haha, yeah.

Try sending me a message using "Faith messenger", see how that works out.

I tried to install Faith Messenger, but my PC said it was only compatible with Century 17 or earlier.

I have high hopes for GodChat, though - I've got it on my mobile. Unlike with PrayerTalk, God responds to you almost straight away, although most of his replies seem to involve telling me to send money to the Vatican.

Does anyone have any idea how to block adverts from the freeware version?

I tried using godchat, but it sends your message to everyone in the world at once, and garbles it so they each receive something different. It's very frustrating.

(March 13, 2016 at 5:23 am)Harris Wrote:

(March 10, 2016 at 3:23 pm)little_monkey Wrote: No, I'm not saying that, but thanks for bringing it up. In areas where science has made great strides then I have something that is reliable. Science is not going to give all the answers, and those answers it provides are under temporary notice - should new evidence be discovered than those answers might be altered. It's a reality I must consider at all times. What may look as a weakness is really a strength as science has an inbuilt mechanism for self-correction. OTOH, if religion claims to have THE truth, then what if it's wrong, and possibly totally wrong, where does that leave those who have adhered to it all their lives? And then in areas where science is in its infancy or has nothing to say yet, I can still use rationality, logic and empirical method to seek out the best way to choose among the options that life offers me. It's much better than accepting any crackpot theory because there's a problem with that from the get-go - which crackpot theory do I choose since they're all equivalent?

Do not forget about the concept of Eugenics that have took lives of tens of millions of innocent people. Everyone know that the idea of Eugenics came from the Great Theory of Evolution based on Natural Selection. It is unwise to overlook the corruptions that people have introduced in scientific concepts to achieve some political objectives. No matter how atrocious those corruptions were but no one is condemning science based on those atrocities.

However, you are making religious corruptions a base to condemn the idea of God, corruptions that people have invented in religions to achieve their selfish, mean, and greedy objectives.

I think you've failed to comprehend the part in which I said, "science is not going to give all the answers, and those answers it provides are under temporary notice - should new evidence be discovered than those answers might be altered."  

I'm not blaming you, perhaps I didn't explain myself enough. Humans are prone to error. Scientists are human, therefore they will err. Religious people are humans, and therefore are prone to err too. But here's the difference. In science there is an inbuilt mechanism in case it is wrong - it's called empirical evidence - if the theory can't explain the facts then the theory needs change, and in some cases be abandoned totally to be replaced by a new theory. But religion doesn't have that feature: it takes its beliefs and morality as eternal, immutable, universal, sacred. But what if it's wrong? They are hundreds of religions on this planet, not counting those who have disappeared. So which one has the truth? Which one has the right morality? On what basis are you going to make those decisions that will distinguish the true religion from all the others? The answer is you have none. Your religion is basically determined from where you were born, who were your parents/guardians, which school you went, and so on, but there is no inbuilt mechanism in your religion for you to use.

Can you apply probability to god? If a bacteria is too complex to put itself together, then either god is less complex than a bacteria or he is impossible.

(March 13, 2016 at 1:52 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Can you apply probability to god?

To calculate any probability, you need to know how many different outcomes there are and the probability of each outcome. That's ok if you toss a coin or roll a pair of dice. But for god? I don't think you can say 50% he exists, 50 % he doesn't. 

Quote:If a bacteria is too complex to put itself together, then either god is less complex than a bacteria or he is impossible.

Bacteria is a complex system, but I think we can solve this puzzle. A lot of the pieces have been discovered, and I believe it is just a matter of time before a team of scientists can put the right configuration of molecules to turn a pile of dirt into a living organism. OTOH, who knows what is the nature of God? If you know someone, please kindly advise.

I'd just like to say that both sides of the fence here have at times called each other or each other's statements stupid.

I find that disconcerting because I can hardly understand a bloody word of what anyone is saying!
You all seem super smart to me.
And thanks everyone for breaking my poor brain.....again! :-)

(March 13, 2016 at 5:27 am)robvalue Wrote: Corruption in scientific concepts?

Some mental guys deciding to eliminate a bunch of people they see as weak has nothing to do with science.

Science is merely a tool for achieving goals. It never tells you what those goals should be.

Do you only question those scientific concepts which make your religious beliefs seem daft? You seem quite happy to take the rest of science for granted.

Are you gone nuts? 100 million plus people have lost their lives and you are saying them “Bunch of People.”

Those insane butchers had used most modern and sophisticated scientific technologies of the time in a precise and systematic manner to slaughter everyone who believed in the existence of God.

Every single person who favoured the use of eugenics to produce super human breed, who favoured social structure without religion, or who favoured both was equally responsible for that butchery.

(March 13, 2016 at 5:54 am)Mathilda Wrote: No we're not. Science has a good understanding of how order arises out of chaos. We can explain the formation of galaxies, solar systems, planets, chemistry, biology, evolution, intelligence, societies and technology to a greater or lesser degree. There is no room for god. The gap for your god is so small as to make it irrelevant if all it did was to create the Big Bang.

By the help of chaos, you are trying to convince yourself that universe emerged out of nothing. That is exactly what I am saying about you. But, what is the origin of chaos if your theory is true?

Chaos depends over already existing paraphernalia which is not “Nothing”. In order to explain chaos, you first need to explain that paraphernalia.

(March 13, 2016 at 5:54 am)Mathilda Wrote: If that was so you would be able to produce observable and reproducible evidence for this. You can't because you're talking bollocks. If what you were saying were true science would have figured out these rules before you were even born. But because you'll just ignore what I have said, show us a natural coding system that "regulates all actions in the universe to such a precision that minuscule change in universal constants can restructure the universe to such an extent that it will be beyond recognition" I shall continue asking you this question until you answer it.

As being a Ph.D. you should know what is “Fine Tuning.”

(March 13, 2016 at 6:12 am)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: If God created supposedly "irreducibly" complex structures, why did he only do it at certain highly arbitrary points?

I am not a fan of Irreducible Complexity Argument but I do support the idea that if a part is taken away from an organism and it stops functioning then that organism is irreducible.