(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: Now God on the other Hand only requires a mustard seed's worth of faith. If one can invest this mustardseed's faith in Him, He will provide the empirical evidence needed to establish and maintain a life time of belief.

Is this what you did drich?

Can you give us the number one empirical evidence god gave you?

Think that evidence would be evidence enough for me to get to you level of faith/belief?

Why is it still referred to faith and belief if there is empirical evidence?

---

(February 2, 2015 at 1:41 am)Drich Wrote: And you've been asked to provide source material when you make a claim. As in your personal redefinition of the word evidence.

Can't you keep track of this discussion? I haven't proffered any "redefinition"; I've only pointed out that your understanding of your own definition is inapt.

Also, I'd like an answer to my question: don't you agree that all genocide, rape, and oppression is bad?

It's a simple yes or no.

(February 2, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 1:41 am)Drich Wrote: And you've been asked to provide source material when you make a claim. As in your personal redefinition of the word evidence.

Can't you keep track of this discussion? I haven't proffered any "redefinition"; I've only pointed out that your understanding of your own definition is inapt.

Also, I'd like an answer to my question: don't you agree that all genocide, rape, and oppression is bad?

It's a simple yes or no.

I would like an answer also. Maybe there should be a new thread asking theists under what conditions would they consider genocidr, rape and oppression a good thing

(February 2, 2015 at 2:25 pm)Nope Wrote:

(February 2, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Can't you keep track of this discussion? I haven't proffered any "redefinition"; I've only pointed out that your understanding of your own definition is inapt.

Also, I'd like an answer to my question: don't you agree that all genocide, rape, and oppression is bad?

It's a simple yes or no.

I would like an answer also. Maybe there should be a new thread asking theists under what conditions would they consider genocidr, rape and oppression a good thing

Although it's a bit of a derail, I think it should be answered in this thread where Drich insinuated that those things are good, so that context can be maintained. Starting a new thread gives him a broom with which to cover his tracks.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found. For Macroevolution another more plausible explaination is the fossils attributed to evolution are just an extinct sub-species of a given phila, and for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence. Neither do. And, if you take a step back because neither of these theories can be tested or repeated therefore they do not fit the 'scientific method' (as testing and repeating a process are crutial/what is used to disqualify God.) qualifier you all have been going on about (what seperates Faith from science.) Because the big bang and the theory of marcroevolution do not fit the Scientific method, and because neither can be supported with empirical evidence, both are indeed On the fringes of science and not apart of legitmate science/applied science. Meaning it takes a rather large measure of faith to accept them.

Others can correct, me but I think we could think of the evolution and the Big Bang as applications of theories instead of theories.

In the case of evolution, we know that natural selection causes changes to a genome. We can observe this and reproduce it on a small scale in the laboratory. Evolution is simply applying this theory to explain how humans evolved from earlier forms of life.

In the case of the Big Bang, we can see the forces of the universe every day through telescopes, etc. We simply apply our theories about these forces to go back in time to the Big Bang.

EDIT: Also in both cases, we can observe the past. For evolution we can observe fossils. For the Big Bang we observe light from the past.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence.

From our observations of the cosmos, we have gathered a plethora of information (empirical data) that agrees with the the hypothesis of the big bang as presented through QM and allows us to present it as a theory. To date, there is no evidence (empirical data) that suggests otherwise. There are other hypotheses (and I even have one that I have been discussing with a couple of physicists), but again, no evidence that contradicts the present theory.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found.

What is a "hypostsis"? Speak English.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: For Macroevolution another more plausible explaination is the fossils attributed to evolution are just an extinct sub-species of a given phila

Except that that doesn't explain Ediacarian lifeforms, nor does it address the point that there is no difference at all between so-called "microevolution" and so-called "macroevolution". Both those terms are terms invented by creationists in order to inject their biases into science.

There is nothing stopping "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution". There is no mechanism. There is nothing in DNA which says "this far, and nothing more".

Do you disagree? Bring facts.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: and for the big bang we have nothing more than observation and theory which again does not fit the defination of empirical evidence.

I hate to break the news to you, but observation is empirical evidence. Go back and look at the definition you yourself linked.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: Neither do. And, if you take a step back because neither of these theories can be tested or repeated therefore they do not fit the 'scientific method' (as testing and repeating a process are crutial/what is used to disqualify God.)

I'd suggest you reread Karl Popper (what's that? You haven't read him in the first place? I'm shocked -- shocked, I tell you.) Repeatability is not a requirement of legitimacy. For instance, paleontology is the study of fossils, and it cannot be repeated. However, and this is important, dipshit, so pay attention -- it can make predictions based on past observations.

And you're simply wrong when you say that BB theory cannot be tested: we test it every day when we measure the location of the stars, and note the interstitial expansion of space.

You should study more. Your ignorance is showing.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: qualifier you all have been going on about (what seperates Faith from science.) Because the big bang and the theory of marcroevolution do not fit the Scientific method, and because neither can be supported with empirical evidence, both are indeed On the fringes of science and not apart of legitmate science/applied science. Meaning it takes a rather large measure of faith to accept them.

And that means that it's probably a bankrupt ontology.

If you disagree, go jump off a cliff, with faith that you won't fall to your death. Get back to us on the results.

(February 2, 2015 at 11:21 am)Drich Wrote: Now God on the other Hand only requires a mustard seed's worth of faith. If one can invest this mustardseed's faith in Him, He will provide the empirical evidence needed to establish and maintain a life time of belief.

That didn't work for me, and it clearly isn't working for you -- otherwise, why do you continue searching for evidence? Clearly, your faith is so weak it needs the support of evidence, which is why you provide links to biased sites, in the hopes of propping up a doddering faith.

You're no different than any other evangelist -- a bunch of hot air, and unwilling to put your money where your mouth is: your claim your faith is comforting, even as your discomfort motivates you to search for evidence.

*Yawn*

Quote:We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found.

Quote:What is a "hypostsis"? Speak English.

An 'hypostsis' is what we base a 'theoritical' premise on.

Boru

(February 2, 2015 at 8:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:We have theoritical hypostsis based on what has been found.

Quote:What is a "hypostsis"? Speak English.

An 'hypostsis' is what we base a 'theoritical' premise on.

Boru

Well, that carlifies everything.

hypostasis

noun (plural hypostases)

1 [mass noun] Medicine The accumulation of fluid or blood in the lower parts of the body or organs under the influence of gravity, as occurs in cases of poor circulation or after death.

2 Philosophy An underlying reality or substance, as opposed to attributes or to that which lacks substance.

3 Theology (In Trinitarian doctrine) each of the three persons of the Trinity, as contrasted with the unity of the Godhead.