Science confirms the Bible?

[Cyberman]

Apologies if this has been addressed, I've been offline a while for personal reasons and haven't been able to keep up properly

Bullshit.

So, your saying science is use to prove the existence of God?!? Do you have any supporting documentation?

No I am not saying that and I don't appreciate words being put into my mouse. I find it patronising and rude and the condescendingly triumphant punctuation doesn't exacty help. Please don't do these things again. I'm simply calling bullshit on your conspiracy theory. Science is a tool for understanding reality and thus follows the evidence. Should that evidence lead to a god or entity of similar distinction, that then becomes a part of reality and can be quantified. In other words, science doesn't - or shouldn't - care whether there is a god or not. Such things prejudge the conclusions and just basically get in the way. There's a reason the Church-dominated era is called the Dark Age.

[Godscreated]

If I'm not mistaken one of Jupiter's moons has an ocean which the solid surface of the moon covers said ocean, could be another planet's moon.

The "solid surface" is.... Wait for it.....

Ice.

Nice try.

You're positive then there is nothing between the ice and ocean.

[Cyberman]

Are you positive that there is? Have you looked?

[Baalzebutt]

You're positive then there is nothing between the ice and ocean.

Like what?

And even if there was some magical fountain, you are talking about a planet several millions of miles away with an atmosphere and structure wholly unlike our own.

How can you possibly equate an ice covered moon in the outer reaches of our solar system with a magical fountain here on Earth?

[Jackalope]

The "solid surface" is.... Wait for it.....

Ice.

Nice try.

You're positive then there is nothing between the ice and ocean.

Reasonably so, yes. The reasoning for why it should be so, and the evidence to support it are pretty compelling.

[Godscreated]

You're positive then there is nothing between the ice and ocean.

Reasonably so, yes. The reasoning for why it should be so, and the evidence to support it are pretty compelling.

Compelling is not positive.

[Jackalope]

Reasonably so, yes. The reasoning for why it should be so, and the evidence to support it are pretty compelling.

Compelling is not positive.

It's a hell of a lot more convincing than suggesting that there's solid ground in between the ice and the ocean. Got anything to support that, or even to suggest that it could be so, or is that another one of your ad hoc "explanations"?

[Zarith]

What's better than cherry picking the bible? Cherry picking both the bible and science, of course.

Godschild, stay in skrewel.

[Brian37]

I wonder what it takes for a person to have such deep trust that what one's own mind produces is a literal connection to the creator of the universe and not any one of a hundred infinitely more plausible alternative explanations. I also wonder why making this connection is impossible without first being told that there is a creator to connect to.

1. I have to trust that what I understand from information presented is as correct as possible, yes. What do you do, lie to yourself?
2. There is no more plausible alternative. You seem to refuse to even begin to think about the subject. I don't wish to be deliberately ignorant.
3. Funnily enough the idea of the creator came last to me too. Why do you assume it had to come first?

---

Do you believe in evolution frodo?

Evolution isn't something anyone needs to believe in. I consider it to be fact.

---

@ThomM

You find no objections to the "points of logic: because there are NONE you ever post that can be objected to.

Like I said I post them all the time, and people agree with them.


If the evidence to support the belief is overwhelming - why is it that the overwhelming majority of people in the world do not believe?

Argumentum ad populum.


And if the evidence is so overwhelming - why is it YOU never post that evidence to begin with as well?

Let me say it again: I post it all of the time. So do others. I said that in my investigations, that were extremely thorough,I found the evidence overwhelming. Presented with the same information, you would too.




Sorry - but the evidence is overwhelmingly against that story being true -and every year - that becomes more and more obvious.

I see you positing no evidence on topic. ignorance of a subject does not stand as evidence against it.

---

If that was true, everyone would believe without question. There is no proof. Faith is not proof, and faith is all any religious believer has. Faith, after all, is the veritable lack of evidence.

1. Does everyone have the exact same evidence that I do? Nein
2. There is proof. Just none you'd consider. There cannot be idependantly verifiable proof for the subject to remain coherent. So your challenge would have to break logic.
3. Christian faith is acting upon information that you trust to be true. I don't recognise your definition/you're not addressing Christianity with it.

---

If it's so simple, how come so many people come to so many different conclusions? And why is it that you never actually specify the process behind testing its validity? You just say "test its validity," which I have done, and have come to a different conclusion than you.

The conclusions are all incredibly close. The starting point: human senses, are the same. What I see are varying degrees of perfection in the information considered and the conclusions reached.
I continually, it seems, spell out the process: Scrutinise the information as thoroughly as possible.
You will naturally have your own history of information, and you must follow that to draw honest conclusions, as we all must. Are your conclusions more valid than mine? if I claim a logical benefit to you over your current conclusion, or you me, how do we justify not embracing each others information?

≤ pause... back later >

There is no such thing as "perfection", that is a personal unscientific word.

Your flawed logic you can thank Plato for, his ignorant idea of "essences" went on to fuck up human logic and still does today, your response here is a testimony to the damage he did to our species.

Do not confuse "honest" with true or verifiable. I am sure you "honestly" believe. I don't doubt that. I doubt your perception of what you think is real.

Are your conclusions more valid than mine?

DAMNED RIGHT.

But theists stupidly use the argument "you just admitted you don't have all the answers".

What science has that theism does not, is a solid foundation of prior tested data. What accurate methodology demands is that if any part of your data or formula is wrong, you scrap it and correct it. You also dump in the garbage can bad claims and bad data.

Theism does not require that quality control. All it relies on is mere wishfhul thinking and marketing.

[fr0d0]

There is no such thing as "perfection", that is a personal unscientific word.

I summons Violet!!

Reality check (sic): the subject isn't science. Perfection can be just that in theory, and in problems of logic, for example.

Are your conclusions more valid than mine?

DAMNED RIGHT.

Wrong class. Science 101 is down the hall

Theism does not require that quality control. All it relies on is mere wishfhul thinking and marketing.

I disagree of course. Both fit a lot of religions, (including Christianity) sure.