1. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:22
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    atheists make bizarre conclusions about how life began, theism is no less of a fairy tale than the big bang THEORY is.
    I've explained this to you before.

    A THEORY is the strongest proof we have in science. It's even stronger than a "fact". This is because it is composed of many thousands or millions of facts. It is an explanation of an entire subject area, which has NEVER been refuted, and has strong predictive power.
  2. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:24
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Really, how do you get everything from nothing?
    Kelly
    I have explained many, many times why your question doesn't make sense, since it presupposes by its very form the prior existence of something.

    Tell me, how do you get a God from nothing?
  3. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:251 edit
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yea, when speaking how it all begun if you look at the time before the
    big bang there are a lot of "it is illogical to think about it since time
    wasn’t there either" it isn't like there are not issues with atheist beliefs
    it is only that they don't like thinking or talking with theists.
    Kelly
    There are things our brains can't handle, sure. That doesn't make it wrong.


    [edit; we can only ride the train of logical deduction to the terminus, and no further - the rails don't go any further.]
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157803
    25 Jun '07 03:36
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    There are things our brains can't handle, sure. That doesn't make it wrong.


    [edit; we can only ride the train of logical deduction to the terminus, and no further - the rails don't go any further.]
    That is the part I do find amusing, you run into a little issue like
    all things from nothing, and yet you cannot buy into God, as if one is
    some how easier understand than the other.
    Kelly
  5. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157803
    25 Jun '07 03:37
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    I have explained many, many times why your question doesn't make sense, since it presupposes by its very form the prior existence of something.

    Tell me, how do you get a God from nothing?
    I do not get God from nothing, I don't believe God came from nothing
    either; I believe God always was, is, and always will be.
    Kelly
  6. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157803
    25 Jun '07 03:41
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    I've explained this to you before.

    A THEORY is the strongest proof we have in science. It's even stronger than a "fact". This is because it is composed of many thousands or millions of facts. It is an explanation of an entire subject area, which has NEVER been refuted, and has strong predictive power.
    Your theory isn't proof of anything, it simply is an explaination, no
    better than a story to surround the current state of things. That makes
    it okay when discussing the current state of things, but when we go
    back in time to talk about the beginning of all things and how we got
    here from there, parts of the beliefs that people use with it takes it
    right up there with a large number of myths found all over the place.
    Kelly
  7. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:45
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    That is the part I do find amusing, you run into a little issue like
    all things from nothing, and yet you cannot buy into God, as if one is
    some how easier understand than the other.
    Kelly
    No. I just know when to say "current modes of investigation don't allow us to know that".

    Sure, there may be a "god", although I don't see the need for one. If there is though, he's just not the God you think he is.
  8. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:46
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I do not get God from nothing, I don't believe God came from nothing
    either; I believe God always was, is, and always will be.
    Kelly
    So why is that any better or worse than my explanation?

    The Universe just is.

    There is no requirement for any God in my explanation, rendering it more parsimonious.
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157803
    25 Jun '07 03:46
    Originally posted by amannion
    Hold on there Kelly, you know better than that.
    Atheism is not science. Don't confuse the two.
    I do not believe I said atheism was science, but that atheist have
    beliefs about the universe. Now I do believe they take some of thier
    beliefs wrap them in what they call science. As if that some how make
    them bullet proof when they don't want to admit all that they are
    doing is telling a story on how things could have happened. Simply
    having a modern story go up against an old story does not
    automatically make the old story wrong, as some seem to assume.
    Kelly
  10. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:48
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Your theory isn't proof of anything, it simply is an explaination, no
    better than a story to surround the current state of things. That makes
    it okay when discussing the current state of things, but when we go
    back in time to talk about the beginning of all things and how we got
    here from there, parts of the beliefs that people use with it takes it
    right up there with a large number of myths found all over the place.
    Kelly
    Except we have physical evidence. In fact, pretty much everything I tell you is based upon experimental evidence (occasionally with a little conjecture, although this is always based upon verified information).
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157803
    25 Jun '07 03:48
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    So why is that any better or worse than my explanation?

    The Universe just is.

    There is no requirement for any God in my explanation, rendering it more parsimonious.
    You remind me of a mechanic what has take apart a car put it back
    together, then wonders what where all the extra parts came from with
    that logic. The universe is what it is, not denying that!
    Kelly
  12. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:49
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    You remind me of a mechanic what has take apart a car put it back
    together, then wonders what where all the extra parts came from with
    that logic. The universe is what it is, not denying that!
    Kelly
    So what?

    Why is your explanation better than mine? Where is your evidence for a God? I can't see it! Is it hiding behind a rock or something?
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157803
    25 Jun '07 03:50
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Except we have physical evidence. In fact, pretty much everything I tell you is based upon experimental evidence (occasionally with a little conjecture, although this is always based upon verified information).
    Your physical evidence can have many stories attached the them.
    Claims you have evidence does not make your conclusions valid.
    I am working on that paper too by the way.
    Kelly
  14. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    25 Jun '07 03:59
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Your physical evidence can have many stories attached the them.
    Claims you have evidence does not make your conclusions valid.
    I am working on that paper too by the way.
    Kelly
    Yes, but based on that evidence, only some stories are valid. And as the data continues to accrue, our guesses become more and more rigorously validated.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Jun '07 08:13
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    atheists make bizarre conclusions about how life began, theism is no less of a fairy tale than the big bang THEORY is.
    Why do creationists keep trying to make out that scientific theories are atheistic in nature? The vast majority of Christians in the world today accept both evolution and the big bang theory as fact (or are simply not educated enough to know what they are). Many, probably even the majority of scientists are Christian or at least theist.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree