Christians

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why you exist - why you survive? The only explanations you have provided are short-sighted ones. Ultimately you live for poofs/nothing - that's what I'm taking away from this. Yu live for things that will be gone soon.

You can’t spell and just repeating the same question over and over is pretty fucking dumb!

Does that qualify as a reason? You are good to others for yourself? If you were really good ("the goodness of your own heart") then you would love your enemies also - being a force to end conflict, whether it works or not.

Of course it qualifies as a reason … his reason not yours. That you don’t like his reason is utterly irrelevant.

You have no idea how sad atheism sounds, apparently.

And you have no idea how pathetic a belief in a 2000 year old zombie Jew who is his father, his son and some other tosspot sounds to us!

People don't live for God, that's why the world is the way it is. He allows us to be free - as your ideas have proven.

Yet recent research implies that crime is WORSE in the US (a supposedly god-fearing country) than it is in secular ones … how do you explain that?

Hope and a reason for existing - results in a different lifestyle. Belief in God results from seeing this existence (all the evidence in the world) and answering the question of where it came from...

For you maybe a belief in a cartoon caricature does, we prefer more rational explanations.

For you - where did this existence come from? Give me one explanation, so I know you're living for a reason.

Evolution

You are relying on the ignorant position - why do you think that suffices? It is honestly ignorant.

Yet you believe the ignorance of your bible

The supporting evidence for an ultimate cause is our existence. You are happy with ignorance. I know that there must be a cause, and I am seeking to explain what the cause must have been. God is what I have found to be true thus far.

And you do that without a shred of validatable evidence … do you realise how impressive that isn’t?

You haven't answered the question of why you exist - because you failed to explain where the singularity came from. You have to provide an explanation for our universe. You may as well have said that your mom birthed you such and such years ago, thats why you exist!

Scientists are working on that and one day they might well be able to tell us but I can tell you one thing … the other won’t be found in your 2000 year old book of fairy tales.

Christians admit to not knowing the answer when they claim to have faith (they have a best guess, and they will (ideally) live as if they're sure). You assume that there is no reason for your existence because you don't know, and you assume that there is no god because you cannot see one. You then go on to make up your own reason for living that doesn't make any sense - because no one can live for no reason - you need something to grasp to... If everyone made up individualized reasons for existing then we would have conflict in the world, perhaps worse than we do - but if everyone accepted that God made this world and His will is for us to do unto others as we would be done by, then there could be no conflict.

You really don’t have a clue about science do you? I an a vague attempt to teach you something I will try:

---

Science & Scientific Methodology
Introduction
The following discussion is designed to explain how science as a methodology applies to the real world.

Discussion
Science is a methodology and any interpretations based with the scientific knowledge base should be necessarily derived from properly derived data. By "scientifically derived" I refer to the characteristics of science. These were necessarily established during the US legal trial, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1996:

Science

• It is guided by natural law;
  
• It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
  
• It is testable against the empirical world;
  
• Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
  
• It is falsifiable.

"Science" which begins with an unshakeable assumption, is not true science. True science is about having no assumptions until they have been accepted through the application of evidence and have demonstrated resilience to genuine falsifiability experiments. This does not apply to pseudo sciences such as creationism.

A scientific theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from experiments which repeatedly observe natural processes. From such data models are developed and it is important to note that these models (and their subsequent outcomes) are not decided in advance but can be modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Science is constantly subject to peer-review and is a self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Science is not teleological that is to say theories do not start with a conclusion, refuse to change and acknowledge only data that the initial conclusion supports. Further, science does not base theories on untestable collections of dogmatic, mythical or mystical proposals but is characterised by questions, hypothetical proposals, design of empirical models and conceptual frameworks with the aim of researching natural events.

Those who claim that science and naturalism are two variants are mistaken; science is the study of the natural universe turning to the natural universe for the explanation. Science and naturalism are one and the same.

The scientific method relies upon two phases, those of observation and hypothesis or theory. Hypotheses and theories are slightly different but in principle a hypothesis must be verifiable or repeatable, falsifiable and it must only use as accepted facts theories which have yet to be found flawed. All hypotheses are under "attack" and may be removed from understood science in one of two ways ... an observation may be made which does not fit the hypothesis forcing modification or a new experiment may be devised that proves the hypothesis to be false.

Natural Law
Natural law is central to science. Natural laws are broad generalisations, essentially descriptions, of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. If a phenomenon depends on supernatural intervention, then it is not relying on natural laws, and it is not explanatory by reference to natural law. (Overton, 1982)

Falsifiability
Another essential characteristic of science is the requirement that a scientific theory be falsifiable, that it be testable and most scientific theories have some trouble with this criterion. Historically based theories such as evolution cannot turn history back so we can view it directly but in that it is no different from many other forms of science ... in fact no one can literally look directly back to any time prior to their own lifetimes so what are we to do? Would critics of science have us assume that everything before our own time is untrue?

Verifiability
Once a hypothesis has been tested through experiment and/or prediction it must be possible for other experimenters to repeat those self-same experiments. That verification may employ the same experimental techniques or different ones but it must be possible.

Tentativeness
Scientists often say there are no facts, that is to say that nothing is "set in stone" in science, although being human, scientists are often reluctant to give up long-standing theories. From this (and verification) it can be seen that science is self-correcting. If a given hypothesis or theory does not fit the available evidence it is modified or it is discarded to be replaced with one that better fits the observations ... it really is that simple.

Scientific laws are generalised descriptions of an ideal or isolated systems behaviour and will seldom, if ever, occur exactly as predicted in the real world because the only truly naturally occurring, isolated system is the universe itself.

Within science many things are not directly observable. No scientist is able to see within the heart of a star or planet, no one has directly observed "black-holes", dinosaurs, gravity or sub-atomic molecules but much data is available concerning these objects and few scientists doubt the validity of such findings. Singularities or "black holes" are not directly visible but scientists searching for explanations of the beginning of our universe hypothesised their existence and the effects that would be caused by such bodies and several such bodies were later identified.

Whilst it may not always be possible to demonstrate how something happened in much of science it is often possible to demonstrate how something could have happened. Having demonstrated how something could happen that hypothesis can be used to predict other events and thus confirm or deny their own validity.

At the root of any theory or scientifically derived conclusion there should be a reasonable interpretation of scientifically derived data that means that data that was acquired non-scientifically can be disqualified. Hypotheses do not necessarily require such supporting evidence because hypotheses are essentially unproven assumptions. Nevertheless hypotheses have significant value in that they can form the framework for further research and may, one day, evolve into theories.

Conclusion
Many individuals are under the mistaken apprehension that to carry out science it is necessary conduct experiments ... this is a vastly over-simplified view. Science requires that a hypothesis or model is formulated and that that is then tested against observations to determine its validity. Experiments are just one method of generating the observations that the validation of a given hypothesis requires. Stars & volcanoes have never been built in laboratories but science nevertheless knows a great deal about such objects.

Claims that science in any way opposes the inspired word of a given religions god or that it is not qualified to investigate a given subject are illogical and irrelevant to science & to rational investigation. Science has no interest in belief systems (myths & fairy tales) nor, whilst they will not submit to valid scientifically based peer-review, in pseudo-sciences.

As for claims that science or theories and disciplines within science are simply religions in themselves, whilst it must be admitted that some individuals do follow science in such a manner, science neither requests nor requires faith in any measure.

References
"The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: August 1999", Kenneth Fair
"The Talk.Origins Archive Feedback: July 1997", John Wilkins
"Information For All Biologists", Dr. Morden
"Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism", Kitcher (1982)
National Center for Science Education 1999

---

I can give evidence for God that suffices for you as easily as you can give an explanation as to why you exist that suffices for me.

I seriously doubt any of us would regard your evidence for god as valid but you’re welcome to try.

We can't explain the inside of the universe, much less the outside. I think it's reasonable to stop trying to explain things once we have explained the universe.

Shockingly there are many scientists who believer we DO have affair idea about what’s going on in the universe … I know that your bible doesn’t teach you that but if you’d paid attention in science lessons (or more likely were ever taught any) you’d have a better idea about that.

Yes (e.g. if someone didn't need any help, I probably wouldn't help them).

We don’t need your *help* so why are you here?

Kyu