Thread: Question for you "Christians" and other types...

Originally Posted by gococksDJS

Most scientists do. Einstein did, Stephen Hawking does....

I didn't think they were christians though...

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I didn't think they were christians though...

Many people believe in God, but don't accept the views of organized religion.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

my arguement here is obviously directed to one who uses the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient being as a given. i have no desire to prove God to you. that is a matter of faith. if you have no desire to believe in a supreme being i cant give you that desire even if i talk myself blue in the face. no matter how much i would love to see everyone feel the joy i do from God i know you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink. i love how you use logical and irrational, when i feel the presence of an omnipotent being is the most rational and logical conclusion of all.

What you Feel doesn't have a place in a logical/rational argument. Conducivity to logic must be established with evidence, not feelings.

Originally Posted by gococksDJS

Most scientists do. Einstein did, Stephen Hawking does....

Einstein didn't believe in the Christian god, he believed in an everpresent energy but not a personal savior. And hawking has actually argued against god in quantum cosmology, he also has never accepted a personal god.

" Obviously implications about the existence and the nature of God. Is there a God who intervenes in the universe, or one who wound up the clock to set things going? I think with the progress of science, most scientists now believe that God does not intervene in the universe. And they believe that the universe evolves according to laws of science. And that there aren't any exceptions to these laws. But I think that most scientists still reserve judgment on how the universe was set up in the first place. Whether that was an act of God, or whether that too was subject to the laws of science. What I'm suggest is, that it was indeed subject to the laws of science."

-Hawking

The most brilliant minds of our time disagree with personal saviours. People capable of thought on much deeper levels than you or I do NOT believe in a personal saviour. Think about that... And even if you don't come the the same conclusion remember -- they are better at thinking than you!

One more and you're out

Originally Posted by bio-chem

my arguement here is obviously directed to one who uses the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient being as a given. i have no desire to prove God to you. that is a matter of faith. if you have no desire to believe in a supreme being i cant give you that desire even if i talk myself blue in the face. no matter how much i would love to see everyone feel the joy i do from God i know you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink. i love how you use logical and irrational, when i feel the presence of an omnipotent being is the most rational and logical conclusion of all.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

my arguement here is obviously directed to one who uses the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient being as a given. i have no desire to prove God to you. that is a matter of faith. if you have no desire to believe in a supreme being i cant give you that desire even if i talk myself blue in the face. no matter how much i would love to see everyone feel the joy i do from God i know you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink. i love how you use logical and irrational, when i feel the presence of an omnipotent being is the most rational and logical conclusion of all.

And that's what faith is all about. Not proving anything, but just believing and having faith that God is there. I mean heck, the Bible even says not to put God to test. Isn't that what asking for proof is?

Originally Posted by dougnukem

And that's what faith is all about. Not proving anything, but just believing and having faith that God is there. I mean heck, the Bible even says not to put God to test. Isn't that what asking for proof is?

That's exactly what it is.

But believing without proof is nieve. You're dilluting yourself by not asking questions that need to be asked, just use your common sense.

I can shoot strawberry flavored pellets out of my ass at light speed, don't ask how just believe.
Would a rational person just accept that or ask hows and whys?

Would you use a faith based parachute?

Knowledge is the ultimate monkey, not faith.

Teaching faith is teaching nothing, it's not knowledge it's not useful, you can't cook with faith, you can't advance technological society with faith.

Faith is quite literaly useless even as social control anymore.

Originally Posted by Tier

That's exactly what it is.

But believing without proof is nieve. You're dilluting yourself by not asking questions that need to be asked, just use your common sense.

I can shoot strawberry flavored pellets out of my ass at light speed, don't ask how just believe.
Would a rational person just accept that or ask hows and whys?

Would you use a faith based parachute?

Knowledge is the ultimate monkey, not faith.

Teaching faith is teaching nothing, it's not knowledge it's not useful, you can't cook with faith, you can't advance technological society with faith.

Faith is quite literaly useless even as social control anymore.

So you feel that faith is nothing but a fallacy? I feel that faith is the most powerful thing in the world. Faith can create a society of peace, but faith can also destroy an entire race. Mock faith all you want, but in the end, faith is still what drives people. When you get in your car and fasten your seatbelt, do you not have faith that if you were in an accident, the automobile manufacturer made that vehicle safe enough to protect you? Or that the safety inspector wasn't having a bad day and decided a few missing springs in one of the brakes is okay?

Originally Posted by dougnukem

So you feel that faith is nothing but a fallacy? I feel that faith is the most powerful thing in the world. Faith can create a society of peace, but faith can also destroy an entire race. Mock faith all you want, but in the end, faith is still what drives people. When you get in your car and fasten your seatbelt, do you not have faith that if you were in an accident, the automobile manufacturer made that vehicle safe enough to protect you? Or that the safety inspector wasn't having a bad day and decided a few missing springs in one of the brakes is okay?

It's not a feel, it's an observe. Which peaceful society did faith produce? I know plenty that have been affected negatively by wars of faith.


No I don't have faith that if I were in an accident it would protect me, thousands of people die a year in automobile accidents....

And on top of that I'm not sure you know how brakes work, making another argument out of ignorance............

Horrible examples jeesh...


In conclusion, your first assertion has no basis. Your first example isn't logical, and your second example is .... funny!

But misleading I must say, trying to synonomize faith and car safety perceptions.

Originally Posted by Tier

It's not a feel, it's an observe. Which peaceful society did faith produce? I know plenty that have been affected negatively by wars of faith.
*I know, faith unfortunately, can go both ways. But take a look at the Hebrews and their faith while being slaves to the Egyptians. The Lord wanted them to have faith and believe in order to have hope that they would be free.No I don't have faith that if I were in an accident it would protect me, thousands of people die a year in automobile accidents....

And on top of that I'm not sure you know how brakes work, making another argument out of ignorance............

Horrible examples jeesh...
*Actually, drum brakes have springs that are used to return the pads to the non-braking position after you release the pressure from the system. So please don't call me ignorant. There is also a spring that is used as part of the emergency or parking brake that is tensioned while the parking brake is set. Here is an exaxmple of what I'm referring to...
"Return Springs
Return springs pull the brake shoes back to their rest position after the pressure is released from the wheel cylinder. If the springs are weak and do not return the shoes all the way, it will cause premature lining wear because the linings will remain in contact with the drum. A good technician will examine the springs during a brake job and recommend their replacement if they show signs of fatigue. On certain vehicles, the technician may recommend replacing them even if they look good as inexpensive insurance."
http://www.familycar.com/brakes.htm#Drum%20BrakeIn conclusion, your first assertion has no basis. Your first example isn't logical, and your second example is .... funny!
But misleading I must say, trying to synonomize faith and car safety perceptions.

*What can I say, I like similes and metaphors.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

You're a bio-chem major and you believe in god?

everthing i have learned has no led me to question my belief in God. to the contrary it has strengthend my faith in him

Originally Posted by Tier

What you Feel doesn't have a place in a logical/rational argument. Conducivity to logic must be established with evidence, not feelings.

really? in a court of law feelings are submissable as evidence as long as they are given in the first person. i think you should re-check your definition of evidence.

Originally Posted by Tier

That's exactly what it is.

But believing without proof is nieve. You're dilluting yourself by not asking questions that need to be asked, just use your common sense.

I can shoot strawberry flavored pellets out of my ass at light speed, don't ask how just believe.
Would a rational person just accept that or ask hows and whys?

Would you use a faith based parachute?

Knowledge is the ultimate monkey, not faith.

Teaching faith is teaching nothing, it's not knowledge it's not useful, you can't cook with faith, you can't advance technological society with faith.

Faith is quite literaly useless even as social control anymore.

no faith does a lot more. true faith leads the sinner to repentance, miracles are wrought by faith, and mountains move because of it.

Originally Posted by Tier

No I don't have faith that if I were in an accident it would protect me, thousands of people die a year in automobile accidents....

and yet we still use it

Originally Posted by Tier

Einstein didn't believe in the Christian god, he believed in an everpresent energy but not a personal savior. And hawking has actually argued against god in quantum cosmology, he also has never accepted a personal god.

" Obviously implications about the existence and the nature of God. Is there a God who intervenes in the universe, or one who wound up the clock to set things going? I think with the progress of science, most scientists now believe that God does not intervene in the universe. And they believe that the universe evolves according to laws of science. And that there aren't any exceptions to these laws. But I think that most scientists still reserve judgment on how the universe was set up in the first place. Whether that was an act of God, or whether that too was subject to the laws of science. What I'm suggest is, that it was indeed subject to the laws of science."

-Hawking

The most brilliant minds of our time disagree with personal saviours. People capable of thought on much deeper levels than you or I do NOT believe in a personal saviour. Think about that... And even if you don't come the the same conclusion remember -- they are better at thinking than you!

One more and you're out

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking ch.12
"... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

It all lies in your personal perception of God, which is the basis of any religious debate. Hawking states that if a complete and unifying theory was proven, we would know why, which in principle, is an answer that the supposed divine creator would know, because he/she/it created us. He doesn't believe in a personal god, nor does he state that there is no God. 185

From Einstein's "Telegram of 1929" published in Albert Einstein by Banes Hoffman and Helen Dukas.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings"

Once again, it lies in your personal perception of god, but I did make it sound like they believed in personal Gods, which they do not, so thanks for the correction Tier. How about only .5 strikes instead of 2?

Originally Posted by Bazooka Tooth

and everything you all say will never defeat the FACT that not only has religion not been proven without a doubt, there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL disproving religion after all these years.

So ALL of my statements are completely valid, because you can't prove them wrong, just as I can't prove them right.

I can't believe I missed this one. You say that religion has never been disproven, so all your statements are valid, well....

General Relativity has never been disproven. Not one time, yet it is in direct violation of what the Bible says about creation, so we are at an endpass. They have both never been disproven, but which one has been proven?

Originally Posted by bio-chem

really? in a court of law feelings are submissable as evidence as long as they are given in the first person. i think you should re-check your definition of evidence.

We're not in a court of law.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

no faith does a lot more. true faith leads the sinner to repentance, miracles are wrought by faith, and mountains move because of it.