Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Science is better at making predictions

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 5:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have read many theists make claims about how they distrust science. They say that believing in science requires the same faith as believing in religion. Surely, everyone must agree that science is far better at making predictions then religion. Take the following scenario, you are getting on a plane, which would you rather hear?

1.The engineers calculated that the plane is safe to fly

2. The engineers had a divine feeling that the plane is safe to fly.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 5:53:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 5:46:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have read many theists make claims about how they distrust science. They say that believing in science requires the same faith as believing in religion. Surely, everyone must agree that science is far better at making predictions then religion. Take the following scenario, you are getting on a plane, which would you rather hear?

1.The engineers calculated that the plane is safe to fly

2. The engineers had a divine feeling that the plane is safe to fly.

You're making a strawman argument. Most Theists don't distrust science, we just believe that it's not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. Science makes a lot of assumptions which scientists pass off as facts. They may be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions nonetheless.

Plus, Christianity has made many predictions that came true, as well. Not just the hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, Isaiah prophecied that Cyrus of Persia (identifying him by name) would proclaim Israel's return from exile some 150 years before Cyrus was even born (Isaiah 44), Daniel prophecied the coming of future great world kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel 2), among many others.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 5:57:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 5:46:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have read many theists make claims about how they distrust science. They say that believing in science requires the same faith as believing in religion. Surely, everyone must agree that science is far better at making predictions then religion. Take the following scenario, you are getting on a plane, which would you rather hear?

1.The engineers calculated that the plane is safe to fly

2. The engineers had a divine feeling that the plane is safe to fly.

It depends on what you're talking about.

Humanity learned to predict things far, far before the invention of scientific processes. So, how can you attribute prediction to science? Humans are just generally smart and good at recognizing patterns. We don't need science for that.

Also, prediction does not imply correctness. If that were true, then the Ptolemy system would be a good argument for a geocentric universe since it is fairly accurate at predicting the motions of the planets and the sun across the night sky.

Jesus himself said "no one can foretell the future." So, at least in Christianity, there is no predicting anything. That's not the point.

Faith in God does not mean standing in the middle of a highway and thinking God will keep you from getting killed. No, faith is in recognizing that God is in control and will, through your body and others, allow you to prosper above those who do not have faith and do not rely on God. Prospering does not mean having money or possessions, but in enriching the experience of life through various experiences.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 6:23:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

You're making a strawman argument. Most Theists don't distrust science, we just believe that it's not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. Science makes a lot of assumptions which scientists pass off as facts. They may be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions nonetheless.

Plus, Christianity has made many predictions that came true, as well. Not just the hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, Isaiah prophecied that Cyrus of Persia (identifying him by name) would proclaim Israel's return from exile some 150 years before Cyrus was even born (Isaiah 44), Daniel prophecied the coming of future great world kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel 2), among many others.

I understand that many theists reconcile their beliefs with science. But, there are many that distrust science only when it contradicts with the bible. They fully agree with science when it comes to technology, the weather, health and medicine however they become extremely skeptical when it comes to evolution, the origin of the universe and age of planet. It is hypocritical to trust in science except when it contradicts the Bible, isn't it?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 6:31:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

It depends on what you're talking about.

Humanity learned to predict things far, far before the invention of scientific processes. So, how can you attribute prediction to science? Humans are just generally smart and good at recognizing patterns. We don't need science for that.

It seems you are talking about intuition. Do you believe that intuition is better at predicting then science?

Also, prediction does not imply correctness. If that were true, then the Ptolemy system would be a good argument for a geocentric universe since it is fairly accurate at predicting the motions of the planets and the sun across the night sky.

I understand this. Even newtons equations did not account for relativity. I am claiming that science is more accurate at predicting then religion. Do you agree?

Jesus himself said "no one can foretell the future." So, at least in Christianity, there is no predicting anything. That's not the point.

Yet the Bible makes predictions, right? So either the predictions are wrong or Jesus is wrong, right?

Faith in God does not mean standing in the middle of a highway and thinking God will keep you from getting killed. No, faith is in recognizing that God is in control and will, through your body and others, allow you to prosper above those who do not have faith and do not rely on God. Prospering does not mean having money or possessions, but in enriching the experience of life through various experiences.

Does faith in God require ignoring scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:33:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems you are talking about intuition. Do you believe that intuition is better at predicting then science?

I'm saying that our ability to predict things has nothing to do with science. "intituton" did not create the Mayan Calendar. That was done by observations and technology far before science was invented.

Humans naturally do most of what is involved in science. Science involves doing two things: Peer review, experimentation.

It's important to note that most scientific theories have been wrong. So, if you look at the history, no, people involved in science fare no better than those of religion.

As far as scientific and religious practices, religion does not make predictions, as I said earlier. Most of religion is about the present, how we can be better people and be the right path right now. At least, that is Christianity and Islam, about 65% of the Earth's population.

I understand this. Even newtons equations did not account for relativity. I am claiming that science is more accurate at predicting then religion. Do you agree?

In Issiah, you had a prediction made over a thousand years before the event, and it happened. That's better than anything science has done.

Yet the Bible makes predictions, right? So either the predictions are wrong or Jesus is wrong, right?

Jesus is not the Bible, and Jesus is not religion. The predictions of the Bible were pretty darn accurate. They didn't tell the exact future, but they foretold that there would be a savior. That is different than saying X event will happen at Y time.

Does faith in God require ignoring scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible?

Lots of things contradict the Bible. The bible was compiled by men. Neither the letter authors nor the compilers were perfect. What's your point?
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:37:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:33:40 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
It seems you are talking about intuition. Do you believe that intuition is better at predicting then science?

I'm saying that our ability to predict things has nothing to do with science. "intituton" did not create the Mayan Calendar. That was done by observations and technology far before science was invented.

LOL. Science isn't an invention. That's like saying "Logic" is an invention.


Humans naturally do most of what is involved in science. Science involves doing two things: Peer review, experimentation.

Uhm, hardly. You forgot:
Observation
Hypothesizing


It's important to note that most scientific theories have been wrong. So, if you look at the history, no, people involved in science fare no better than those of religion.

All science is "wrong." That's the point. The point is to find out how it is wrong and fix it. Religion doesn't even acknowledge that it is wrong, ergo no one tries to fix it. Well, people do (ex: Martin Luther) but that doesn't fix anything, it just makes a new religion, without replacing the old, an essential component of science.


As far as scientific and religious practices, religion does not make predictions, as I said earlier. Most of religion is about the present, how we can be better people and be the right path right now. At least, that is Christianity and Islam, about 65% of the Earth's population.

So, the events of the Book of Revelations already happened? Interesting.


I understand this. Even newtons equations did not account for relativity. I am claiming that science is more accurate at predicting then religion. Do you agree?

In Issiah, you had a prediction made over a thousand years before the event, and it happened. That's better than anything science has done.

Yet the Bible makes predictions, right? So either the predictions are wrong or Jesus is wrong, right?

Jesus is not the Bible, and Jesus is not religion. The predictions of the Bible were pretty darn accurate. They didn't tell the exact future, but they foretold that there would be a savior. That is different than saying X event will happen at Y time.

Does faith in God require ignoring scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible?

Lots of things contradict the Bible. The bible was compiled by men. Neither the letter authors nor the compilers were perfect. What's your point?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:48:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
LOL. Science isn't an invention. That's like saying "Logic" is an invention.

The fundamentals of science were brought together first by Galileo through his experimentation with falling bodies and recorded observations of the Solar System. Before Galileo, there was no science.

Uhm, hardly. You forgot:
Observation
Hypothesizing

We did those things before science was invented. No, those are not exclusively scientific principles. The system of peer review and repeated, controlled experimentation are what make science science. Again, becoming accepted with Galileo.

All science is "wrong."

Now we're getting somewhere!

That's the point. The point is to find out how it is wrong and fix it. Religion doesn't even acknowledge that it is wrong, ergo no one tries to fix it. Well, people do (ex: Martin Luther) but that doesn't fix anything, it just makes a new religion, without replacing the old, an essential component of science.

Problem with that logic:
You are fixing something that is 'wrong' w something else that is 'wrong'?

Religions admit that they are wrong all of the time. Have you even read the things that the pope has corrected about biblical interpretation of the Catholics? The Popes have submitted to many things.

I am glad that you made that quote, because it is the most honest statement about science that I have ever seen in a sentence. Most people will say, as used to be in my signature that it is simply the scientific process at work, completely ignoring the 'wrong' factor for 'SCIENCE!'

So, the events of the Book of Revelations already happened? Interesting.

Not a whole lot of people live their lives based on what is written there. I honestly don't even count that as acceptable Christian doctrine because it flies in the face of everything else in the New Testament. Yeah, every now and again you'll see things predicted, but I'm talking about how we are to live our daily lives. The predictions themselves are just points of debate for individuals.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 8:54:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:48:51 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
LOL. Science isn't an invention. That's like saying "Logic" is an invention.

The fundamentals of science were brought together first by Galileo through his experimentation with falling bodies and recorded observations of the Solar System. Before Galileo, there was no science.

Science has its roots in Natural Philosophy which predates Galileo by a long shot.


Uhm, hardly. You forgot:
Observation
Hypothesizing

We did those things before science was invented. No, those are not exclusively scientific principles. The system of peer review and repeated, controlled experimentation are what make science science. Again, becoming accepted with Galileo.

You didn't say anything about what is exclusive to science. You said what science involves and your depiction of what science involves is really very poor.



All science is "wrong."

Now we're getting somewhere!

That's the point. The point is to find out how it is wrong and fix it. Religion doesn't even acknowledge that it is wrong, ergo no one tries to fix it. Well, people do (ex: Martin Luther) but that doesn't fix anything, it just makes a new religion, without replacing the old, an essential component of science.

Problem with that logic:
You are fixing something that is 'wrong' w something else that is 'wrong'?

Yes. Wrong, but better.


Religions admit that they are wrong all of the time. Have you even read the things that the pope has corrected about biblical interpretation of the Catholics? The Popes have submitted to many things.

Biblical interpretations are acts of people. They aren't admitting any fault to the underlying fundamentals (that which was being interpreted). The religion is NEVER at fault, just the people.


I am glad that you made that quote, because it is the most honest statement about science that I have ever seen in a sentence. Most people will say, as used to be in my signature that it is simply the scientific process at work, completely ignoring the 'wrong' factor for 'SCIENCE!'

No one ignores that. We've been through this before and your perception here was basically debunk. Glad you are capable of learning from your mistakes! (/sarcasm)



So, the events of the Book of Revelations already happened? Interesting.

Not a whole lot of people live their lives based on what is written there. I honestly don't even count that as acceptable Christian doctrine because it flies in the face of everything else in the New Testament. Yeah, every now and again you'll see things predicted, but I'm talking about how we are to live our daily lives. The predictions themselves are just points of debate for individuals.

So, the prediction that whether I go to heaven or hell should not have any affect about how I live my daily life?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:27:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science has its roots in Natural Philosophy which predates Galileo by a long shot.

But, it wasn't science. Yeah, everything has its roots, so what? 'm talking about the scientific process as a whole, not the basis for it. Natural Philosophy is not science.

You didn't say anything about what is exclusive to science. You said what science involves and your depiction of what science involves is really very poor.

I should have been clear that I meant the unique aspects of science, but you could have easily gathered what I meant by looking at what I said about what people were already doing.

But, there's still no getting around that science's only unique elements are, indeed, peer review (argumetum ad populum) and repeated experimentation to verify results (usually ends up being anecdotal since most people don't perform the experiments themselves)

Yes. Wrong, but better.

Right is right, and wrong wrong. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and then using an octagonal peg and trying to do the same. Just because it's closer to fitting doesn't men it fits.

Biblical interpretations are acts of people. They aren't admitting any fault to the underlying fundamentals (that which was being interpreted). The religion is NEVER at fault, just the people.

When the religion changes, that means the religion is at fault. Catholic biblical interpretation is based on the pope. When the pope changes interpretation, the religion changes. Religion has made more corrections to itself than the scientific process, so I would say religion is far more open to being wrong than science if you look at both in general.

No one ignores that. We've been through this before and your perception here was basically debunk. Glad you are capable of learning from your mistakes! (/sarcasm)

My position has not changed. I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

So, the prediction that whether I go to heaven or hell should not have any affect about how I live my daily life?

No. It shouldn't. Being with God is something to be excited about, but it's not supposed to be the primary motivator. It is simply the finality of accepting God and choosing him vs not choosing him.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:32:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:27:24 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Science has its roots in Natural Philosophy which predates Galileo by a long shot.

But, it wasn't science. Yeah, everything has its roots, so what? 'm talking about the scientific process as a whole, not the basis for it. Natural Philosophy is not science.

Science wasn't some discrete thing that, one day wasn't, then one day was.


You didn't say anything about what is exclusive to science. You said what science involves and your depiction of what science involves is really very poor.

I should have been clear that I meant the unique aspects of science, but you could have easily gathered what I meant by looking at what I said about what people were already doing.

Peer review and experimentation are not unique to science.


But, there's still no getting around that science's only unique elements are, indeed, peer review (argumetum ad populum) and repeated experimentation to verify results (usually ends up being anecdotal since most people don't perform the experiments themselves)

Yes. Wrong, but better.

Right is right, and wrong wrong. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and then using an octagonal peg and trying to do the same. Just because it's closer to fitting doesn't men it fits.

You just don't get it, do you?


Biblical interpretations are acts of people. They aren't admitting any fault to the underlying fundamentals (that which was being interpreted). The religion is NEVER at fault, just the people.

When the religion changes, that means the religion is at fault.

Religion doesn't change; it schisms.

Catholic biblical interpretation is based on the pope. When the pope changes interpretation, the religion changes. Religion has made more corrections to itself than the scientific process, so I would say religion is far more open to being wrong than science if you look at both in general.

In other words, you ignored what I said.


No one ignores that. We've been through this before and your perception here was basically debunk. Glad you are capable of learning from your mistakes! (/sarcasm)

My position has not changed. I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

That's my point. Your flawed position hasn't changed. You fail to learn.


So, the prediction that whether I go to heaven or hell should not have any affect about how I live my daily life?

No. It shouldn't. Being with God is something to be excited about, but it's not supposed to be the primary motivator. It is simply the finality of accepting God and choosing him vs not choosing him.

Then why tell people about heaven or hell?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:33:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 8:33:40 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
It seems you are talking about intuition. Do you believe that intuition is better at predicting then science?

I'm saying that our ability to predict things has nothing to do with science. "intituton" did not create the Mayan Calendar. That was done by observations and technology far before science was invented.

You say predicting has nothing to do with science. Then what is better then science? You critisize predictions of science without offering a better method of predicting. I am confused by your last sentence. Observation and technology are science.

Humans naturally do most of what is involved in science. Science involves doing two things: Peer review, experimentation.

You say humans naturally do science. Please clarify your point

It's important to note that most scientific theories have been wrong. So, if you look at the history, no, people involved in science fare no better than those of religion.

Many scientific discoveries have been proven right. Zero religions have been proven right. Theories are meant to find the truth. Theories give a "ball park" idea as to what happened. The theorie gets adjusted to be more and more accurate as more discoveries are found.

As far as scientific and religious practices, religion does not make predictions, as I said earlier.:
In Issiah, you had a prediction made over a thousand years before the event, and it happened. That's better than anything science has done.

You say religions don't make predictions then say that the Bible predicted a true event. No serious person would think that a prediction in an old book is better than ANYTHING science has EVER done. Science put a man on the moon, cured many terminal illnesses, created innovative technology and you think a Bible prediction is more amazing?!


The predictions of the Bible were pretty darn accurate. They didn't tell the exact future, but they foretold that there would be a savior.

Nostradamus was also pretty darn accurate. Most Bible predictions are not accurate but vague. Science can calculate the exact force of gravity, give models for magnetic energy and describe relativity. Science is accurate the bible is vague.
Does faith in God require ignoring scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible?

Lots of things contradict the Bible. The bible was compiled by men. Neither the letter authors nor the compilers were perfect. What's your point?

My point is would you believe a scientific discovery over your religion. What holds more weight to you, science or your spiritual feelings? If a Bible passage was proven wrong, would you still believe it. It seems you think the Bible may have human errors. So, what is more convinging to you scientific discovery or a magical book that has some errors?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 9:38:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

When the religion changes, that means the religion is at fault. Catholic biblical interpretation is based on the pope. When the pope changes interpretation, the religion changes. Religion has made more corrections to itself than the scientific process, so I would say religion is far more open to being wrong than science if you look at both in general.

The catholic church did not forgive Galileo for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun until 1992. http://www.zimbio.com...

1992. It took until over 20 years after man had been on the moon, for the pope to forgive Galileo for his scientific findings. In science it is encouraged to find a mistake. It seems that religions do not like finding mistakes.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:33:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Science wasn't some discrete thing that, one day wasn't, then one day was.

Actually, nearly all of the fundamentals are based on Galileo's observational techniques. at least, those that science added to what humanity had already done. It sort of did appear at once. Mormons and Wiccans, for example, are new to the scene of religion, but they hand their hats on older events and ideas.

Peer review and experimentation are not unique to science.

Experimentation with precise controls and the peer review of such experimentation are unique to science. No, scientists did not perfom the first experiments, but they are the first ones to put in ways of detecting effects of various phenomea outside of normal (control) situations.

You just don't get it, do you?

I do get it very much. You can better approximate things all you want, but you will b no closer to absolute truth by doing so. You will just confine your guesses at exponentially decreasing intervals until the guesses cannot escape noisy data.

Religion doesn't change; it schisms.

It does both. The Catholic Church has made many changes.

That's my point. Your flawed position hasn't changed. You fail to learn.

I disagree that my position is fundamentally flawed in any way.

Then why tell people about heaven or hell?

It's certainly nice to know, and it's certainly good to work toward what goals God has for us by being on the right path. At least, as best as a human can be.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:36:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The catholic church did not forgive Galileo for claiming that the earth revolved around the sun until 1992. http://www.zimbio.com...

Catholic church condemned Galileo for biblical interpretation from my recollection. He was not put under house arrest because he believed in a heliocentric solar system.

1992. It took until over 20 years after man had been on the moon, for the pope to forgive Galileo for his scientific findings. In science it is encouraged to find a mistake. It seems that religions do not like finding mistakes.

Nobody likes making mistakes. Bottom line. But, religions have changed far more than science has as a whole.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2012 10:55:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:27:24 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Science has its roots in Natural Philosophy which predates Galileo by a long shot.

But, it wasn't science. Yeah, everything has its roots, so what? 'm talking about the scientific process as a whole, not the basis for it. Natural Philosophy is not science.

You didn't say anything about what is exclusive to science. You said what science involves and your depiction of what science involves is really very poor.

I should have been clear that I meant the unique aspects of science, but you could have easily gathered what I meant by looking at what I said about what people were already doing.

But, there's still no getting around that science's only unique elements are, indeed, peer review (argumetum ad populum) and repeated experimentation to verify results (usually ends up being anecdotal since most people don't perform the experiments themselves)

Yes. Wrong, but better.

Right is right, and wrong wrong. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and then using an octagonal peg and trying to do the same. Just because it's closer to fitting doesn't men it fits.

Biblical interpretations are acts of people. They aren't admitting any fault to the underlying fundamentals (that which was being interpreted). The religion is NEVER at fault, just the people.

When the religion changes, that means the religion is at fault. Catholic biblical interpretation is based on the pope. When the pope changes interpretation, the religion changes. Religion has made more corrections to itself than the scientific process, so I would say religion is far more open to being wrong than science if you look at both in general.

No one ignores that. We've been through this before and your perception here was basically debunk. Glad you are capable of learning from your mistakes! (/sarcasm)

My position has not changed. I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

So, the prediction that whether I go to heaven or hell should not have any affect about how I live my daily life?

No. It shouldn't. Being with God is something to be excited about, but it's not supposed to be the primary motivator. It is simply the finality of accepting God and choosing him vs not choosing him.

The Fool: knowledge is only usefull if it can predict, an explanation that cannot predict is false explanation.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 12:19:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You say predicting has nothing to do with science. Then what is better then science?

Take "peer review" out of the equation, and you still can have the same predictions, as has been shown in the past. So, a process which relies on repeated experimentation, but does not rely on scientific concensus to declare something as sound.

I would mean saying that we know less, but it would eliminate the illusion of knowing more and looking stupid as science does every time a theory falls on its face.

Observation and technology are science.

They are two parts of science.

Humans naturally do most of what is involved in science. Science involves doing two things: Peer review, experimentation.

You say humans naturally do science. Please clarify your point

I said humans do most of what is involved in science. I did not say humans do science naturally.

We built pyramids, Stonehenge, roads, aquaducts, and coliseums without science. We predicted the motions of the planets, moon, and sun without science.

Many scientific discoveries have been proven right.

Scientific theories don't prove. They estimate.

Zero religions have been proven right.

It depends on your definition of "proven right." Its different for everybody. As I said before, Chuck Norris can't count to the amount of evidence required for atheists to accept the truth.

Theories are meant to find the truth.

Truth isn't the work of science. Guesswork is.

Theories give a "ball park" idea as to what happened.

Theories do estimate. I'm not sure why you are contadicting yourself with "truth" and then saying "ball park," but, either way, science does an incredibly poor job at explaining events in the past, which falls outside of the bounds of the standard Scientific Method.

The theory gets adjusted to be more and more accurate as more discoveries are found.

With diminishing returns.

You say religions don't make predictions then say that the Bible predicted a true event. No serious person would think that a prediction in an old book is better than ANYTHING science has EVER done. Science put a man on the moon, cured many terminal illnesses, created innovative technology and you think a Bible prediction is more amazing?!

No, I said that no one can foretell the future. My interpretaton of foretelling the future is to say "X event will happen at Y time." That is not what Issiah did, and it's not what Jesus did when he said he would return. Issiah said that X would happe, but didn't give Y time.

Issiah predicted 1000 years ahead of time. That was pretty freaking good if you ask me. What thousand year predictions does science have to offer?

Nostradamus was also pretty darn accurate. Most Bible predictions are not accurate but vague. Science can calculate the exact force of gravity, give models for magnetic energy and describe relativity. Science is accurate the bible is vague.

Considering what was required of mankind in Issiah's time, saying that Jesus would come and predicting the circumstances. More importantly, saying that all men would be saved through him. A lot of predictions in the Bible are vague. This is not one of them.

My point is would you believe a scientific discovery over your religion. What holds more weight to you, science or your spiritual feelings? If a Bible passage was proven wrong, would you still believe it. It seems you think the Bible may have human errors. So, what is more convinging to you scientific discovery or a magical book that has some errors?

My relationship with God reigns over both the Bible and scientific discovery. No, the Bile is not perfect, but the Bible has touched on subjects that science can never touch. Real truths, not scientific guesswork. It does not matter to me that the Bible was written by men, or that the Bible has huge flaws. The key issue is that I will rely on imperfect people who love God than an imperfect guessing game of which entirely too much money is spent simply because science, to date, has not touched God, consciousness, or existence.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 12:22:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: knowledge is only usefull if it can predict, an explanation that cannot predict is false explanation.

Macroevolution cannot predict. Useless. False explanation.
Giant Impact Theory cannot predict. Useless. False explanation.
Big Bang Theory cannot predict. Useless. False explanation.
Dark Matter cannot predict. Useless. False explanation.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
ScottyDouglas
Posts: 2,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 12:28:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: knowledge is only usefull if it can predict, an explanation that cannot predict is false explanation.

Predict our next species evolution? What will man become? When will the universe shrink back up so we can bang again?
TheAsylum
SuburbiaSurvivor
Posts: 872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 12:33:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 6:23:41 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

You're making a strawman argument. Most Theists don't distrust science, we just believe that it's not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. Science makes a lot of assumptions which scientists pass off as facts. They may be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions nonetheless.

Plus, Christianity has made many predictions that came true, as well. Not just the hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, Isaiah prophecied that Cyrus of Persia (identifying him by name) would proclaim Israel's return from exile some 150 years before Cyrus was even born (Isaiah 44), Daniel prophecied the coming of future great world kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel 2), among many others.

I understand that many theists reconcile their beliefs with science. But, there are many that distrust science only when it contradicts with the bible. They fully agree with science when it comes to technology, the weather, health and medicine however they become extremely skeptical when it comes to evolution, the origin of the universe and age of planet. It is hypocritical to trust in science except when it contradicts the Bible, isn't it?

Completely ignored that point, didn't you?
"I'm going to tell you something that you're never going to forget, SuburbiaSurvivor. Women... Are just human beings"
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:23:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:32:45 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/10/2012 9:27:24 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Science has its roots in Natural Philosophy which predates Galileo by a long shot.

But, it wasn't science. Yeah, everything has its roots, so what? 'm talking about the scientific process as a whole, not the basis for it. Natural Philosophy is not science.

Science wasn't some discrete thing that, one day wasn't, then one day was.


You didn't say anything about what is exclusive to science. You said what science involves and your depiction of what science involves is really very poor.

I should have been clear that I meant the unique aspects of science, but you could have easily gathered what I meant by looking at what I said about what people were already doing.

Peer review and experimentation are not unique to science.


But, there's still no getting around that science's only unique elements are, indeed, peer review (argumetum ad populum) and repeated experimentation to verify results (usually ends up being anecdotal since most people don't perform the experiments themselves)

Yes. Wrong, but better.

Right is right, and wrong wrong. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and then using an octagonal peg and trying to do the same. Just because it's closer to fitting doesn't men it fits.

You just don't get it, do you?


Biblical interpretations are acts of people. They aren't admitting any fault to the underlying fundamentals (that which was being interpreted). The religion is NEVER at fault, just the people.

When the religion changes, that means the religion is at fault.

Religion doesn't change; it schisms.

Catholic biblical interpretation is based on the pope. When the pope changes interpretation, the religion changes. Religion has made more corrections to itself than the scientific process, so I would say religion is far more open to being wrong than science if you look at both in general.

In other words, you ignored what I said.


No one ignores that. We've been through this before and your perception here was basically debunk. Glad you are capable of learning from your mistakes! (/sarcasm)

My position has not changed. I'm not really sure what you're referring to.

That's my point. Your flawed position hasn't changed. You fail to learn.


So, the prediction that whether I go to heaven or hell should not have any affect about how I live my daily life?

No. It shouldn't. Being with God is something to be excited about, but it's not supposed to be the primary motivator. It is simply the finality of accepting God and choosing him vs not choosing him.

Then why tell people about heaven or hell?

The Fool: The First day I argued with cbrhawk1. It didn't take a long time for me to notice that he is fanatically Religious, arguing with him is a complete waste of time. You might as well talk to a wall, or one of those down town fanatics yelling about 'jesus'. He is at a point of no return.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:32:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 5:53:33 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 6/10/2012 5:46:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have read many theists make claims about how they distrust science. They say that believing in science requires the same faith as believing in religion. Surely, everyone must agree that science is far better at making predictions then religion. Take the following scenario, you are getting on a plane, which would you rather hear?

1.The engineers calculated that the plane is safe to fly

2. The engineers had a divine feeling that the plane is safe to fly.

You're making a strawman argument. Most Theists don't distrust science,

The Fool: many theist don't trust it now. I don't know about most, but that is only after something as been accepted for a long time. When Gallileo first presented his book to the church they told him it could only be published if he change the information which went againt the bible. So, what he did was right it in the form of the dialogue, in which two people were argueing and one of the guys, was arguing about how the earth may not be the center of the universe. By the time they realized this his book was out and pubish. If the informatino didnt spread he would have been Burnt at the Stake Alive. He was house arrest for that. If information wasn't known by others, and the churc
we just believe that it's not the be-all and end-all of knowledge. Science makes a lot of assumptions which scientists pass off as facts. They may be reasonable assumptions, but they are assumptions nonetheless.

Plus, Christianity has made many predictions that came true, as well. Not just the hundreds of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, Isaiah prophecied that Cyrus of Persia (identifying him by name) would proclaim Israel's return from exile some 150 years before Cyrus was even born (Isaiah 44), Daniel prophecied the coming of future great world kingdoms: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel 2), among many others.

The Fool: all that is after the fact. The writing could have came after. You are assuming by faith the certainty of the truth of religious literature.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:36:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 5:46:16 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have read many theists make claims about how they distrust science. They say that believing in science requires the same faith as believing in religion. Surely, everyone must agree that science is far better at making predictions then religion. Take the following scenario, you are getting on a plane, which would you rather hear?

1.The engineers calculated that the plane is safe to fly

2. The engineers had a divine feeling that the plane is safe to fly.

The Fool: I would agree with them that most people take the truth of science of faith alone! even most of the scientist. Not that it is actually of faith.. but most wouldnt be to give an ntellegable answer.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:38:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 9:33:12 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/10/2012 8:33:40 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
It seems you are talking about intuition. Do you believe that intuition is better at predicting then science?

I'm saying that our ability to predict things has nothing to do with science. "intituton" did not create the Mayan Calendar. That was done by observations and technology far before science was invented.

You say predicting has nothing to do with science. Then what is better then science? You critisize predictions of science without offering a better method of predicting. I am confused by your last sentence. Observation and technology are science.

Humans naturally do most of what is involved in science. Science involves doing two things: Peer review, experimentation.

You say humans naturally do science. Please clarify your point

It's important to note that most scientific theories have been wrong. So, if you look at the history, no, people involved in science fare no better than those of religion.

Many scientific discoveries have been proven right. Zero religions have been proven right. Theories are meant to find the truth. Theories give a "ball park" idea as to what happened. The theorie gets adjusted to be more and more accurate as more discoveries are found.

As far as scientific and religious practices, religion does not make predictions, as I said earlier.:
In Issiah, you had a prediction made over a thousand years before the event, and it happened. That's better than anything science has done.

You say religions don't make predictions then say that the Bible predicted a true event. No serious person would think that a prediction in an old book is better than ANYTHING science has EVER done. Science put a man on the moon, cured many terminal illnesses, created innovative technology and you think a Bible prediction is more amazing?!



The predictions of the Bible were pretty darn accurate. They didn't tell the exact future, but they foretold that there would be a savior.

Nostradamus was also pretty darn accurate. Most Bible predictions are not accurate but vague. Science can calculate the exact force of gravity, give models for magnetic energy and describe relativity. Science is accurate the bible is vague.
Does faith in God require ignoring scientific evidence that contradicts the Bible?

Lots of things contradict the Bible. The bible was compiled by men. Neither the letter authors nor the compilers were perfect. What's your point?

My point is would you believe a scientific discovery over your religion. What holds more weight to you, science or your spiritual feelings? If a Bible passage was proven wrong, would you still believe it. It seems you think the Bible may have human errors. So, what is more convinging to you scientific discovery or a magical book that has some errors?

The Fool: Knowledge that doesn't predict is not knowledge. The hallmark of science is predictible explanation. This guy you talking to is a waste of time.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 6:41:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/10/2012 10:33:34 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Science wasn't some discrete thing that, one day wasn't, then one day was.

Actually, nearly all of the fundamentals are based on Galileo's observational techniques. at least, those that science added to what humanity had already done. It sort of did appear at once. Mormons and Wiccans, for example, are new to the scene of religion, but they hand their hats on older events and ideas.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to see some reference that says that science started with Galileo.


Peer review and experimentation are not unique to science.

Experimentation with precise controls and the peer review of such experimentation are unique to science. No, scientists did not perfom the first experiments, but they are the first ones to put in ways of detecting effects of various phenomea outside of normal (control) situations.

LOL. When you decide to stop moving goal posts, we'll continue this part of the discussion. Everytime I criticize your comment here, you change it.


You just don't get it, do you?

I do get it very much. You can better approximate things all you want, but you will b no closer to absolute truth by doing so. You will just confine your guesses at exponentially decreasing intervals until the guesses cannot escape noisy data.

To better approximate things IS to come closer to the truth.


Religion doesn't change; it schisms.

It does both. The Catholic Church has made many changes.

Name one time that Catholic Church has said the Bible was in error and changed it.


That's my point. Your flawed position hasn't changed. You fail to learn.

I disagree that my position is fundamentally flawed in any way.

I don't doubt you lack the metacognitive awareness to see your own mistakes.


Then why tell people about heaven or hell?

It's certainly nice to know, and it's certainly good to work toward what goals God has for us by being on the right path. At least, as best as a human can be.

That doesn't answer the question. What is the motivation in telling us about heaven or hell, if not to encourage us to modify our behavior to attain one and avoid the other?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 2:33:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: The First day I argued with cbrhawk1. It didn't take a long time for me to notice that he is fanatically Religious, arguing with him is a complete waste of time. You might as well talk to a wall, or one of those down town fanatics yelling about 'jesus'. He is at a point of no return.

I absolutely find this post hilarious. I am not a religious person. I don't believe in organized religion, to be honest.

But, you'll continue to take your position of ignorance, I suppose.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 2:54:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see some reference that says that science started with Galileo.

It's an entirely subjective question. I believe it started because of galileo because of experimetation. But, let's look at the definitions

Science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

This would imply that science started with Kepler and Newton, since they were the first to show the operation of general laws.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Implies Galileo since he was the first one to run controlled experiments.

Origin:
1300–50; Middle English < Middle French < Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sci&#275;ns ), present participle of sc&#299;re to know + -ia -ia

The origins of the word "science" in language are between 1300-1350. Therefore, no systematic process directly relating to science likely existed before then, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

LOL. When you decide to stop moving goal posts, we'll continue this part of the discussion. Everytime I criticize your comment here, you change it.

I didn't change my definition. You misunderstood what I meant. I've already corrected your misunderstanding, and you refuse to argue the content.

Not surprising.

To better approximate things IS to come closer to the truth.

That's like saying that 50 is closer to infinity than 5. It doesn't matter how big of a number you use, infinity - x (when on a non-infinity number line) is always infinity.

If it takes an infinite amount of approximations to reach the truth, 500,000 consecutively better approximations is no closer than 5,000.

Name one time that Catholic Church has said the Bible was in error and changed it.

It has changed its interpretatation of the Bible. Practicing Catholics use the Pope's interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, when the Pope's mind changes, the religion changes. Changing the Bible would be like editing the text of famous historians of ancient times. You just don't do that to historical works.

You simply gain understanding through analysis.

I don't doubt you lack the metacognitive awareness to see your own mistakes.

Of course you don't. You're a doubter by nature, even of the very scientific dogma you subscribe to. Yes, I make mistakes, but the logic of people who love God is a bit more sound IMO.

That doesn't answer the question. What is the motivation in telling us about heaven or hell, if not to encourage us to modify our behavior to attain one and avoid the other?

I already told you that it is not "motivation." It means what we are working toward and what will happen. You work in life knowing that there is more to what we experience. It is not motivation, it is simply knowledge of reality.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 3:54:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 2:54:50 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Sorry, but I'm going to have to see some reference that says that science started with Galileo.

It's an entirely subjective question. I believe it started because of galileo because of experimetation. But, let's look at the definitions

Science:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

This would imply that science started with Kepler and Newton, since they were the first to show the operation of general laws.

No it wouldn't. That definition precedes them by a long shot.


2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Implies Galileo since he was the first one to run controlled experiments.

Repeating yourself isn't a reference.


Origin:
1300–50; Middle English < Middle French < Latin scientia knowledge, equivalent to scient- (stem of sci&#275;ns ), present participle of sc&#299;re to know + -ia -ia

The origins of the word "science" in language are between 1300-1350. Therefore, no systematic process directly relating to science likely existed before then, regardless of your opinion on the matter.

Or they just called it something else.


LOL. When you decide to stop moving goal posts, we'll continue this part of the discussion. Everytime I criticize your comment here, you change it.

I didn't change my definition. You misunderstood what I meant. I've already corrected your misunderstanding, and you refuse to argue the content.

Because you keep changing it.


Not surprising.

To better approximate things IS to come closer to the truth.

That's like saying that 50 is closer to infinity than 5. It doesn't matter how big of a number you use, infinity - x (when on a non-infinity number line) is always infinity.

Your first sentence is nonsensical. Infinity isn't a goal one gets closer to, so it is not an appropriate analogy. It'd be more like approaching the asymptote of some plotted curve, always getting closer, but never able to reached. Lot fvcking better than doing nothing.


If it takes an infinite amount of approximations to reach the truth, 500,000 consecutively better approximations is no closer than 5,000.

It is precisely 100 times better.


Name one time that Catholic Church has said the Bible was in error and changed it.

It has changed its interpretatation of the Bible.

I didn't say the interpretation of the Bible. Try again.

Practicing Catholics use the Pope's interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, when the Pope's mind changes, the religion changes. Changing the Bible would be like editing the text of famous historians of ancient times. You just don't do that to historical works.

You simply gain understanding through analysis.

I don't doubt you lack the metacognitive awareness to see your own mistakes.

Of course you don't. You're a doubter by nature, even of the very scientific dogma you subscribe to. Yes, I make mistakes, but the logic of people who love God is a bit more sound IMO.

Prove it.


That doesn't answer the question. What is the motivation in telling us about heaven or hell, if not to encourage us to modify our behavior to attain one and avoid the other?

I already told you that it is not "motivation." It means what we are working toward and what will happen. You work in life knowing that there is more to what we experience. It is not motivation, it is simply knowledge of reality.

So you have no motives, no intents? You are a mindless automaton? Bullsh1t.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2012 4:15:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No it wouldn't. That definition precedes them by a long shot.

And, when was the first law of nature proposed again? I'm talking about a law in a scientific sense.

Repeating yourself isn't a reference.

Well, if you can come up with people whodid controlled experiments before him, let me know.

Or they just called it something else.

Like?

Because you keep changing it.

Never changed it once. You were corrected on this already.

Your first sentence is nonsensical. Infinity isn't a goal one gets closer to,

That's exactly what I said.

Points for redundancy.

If it takes an infinite amount of approximations to reach the truth, 500,000 consecutively better approximations is no closer than 5,000.

It is precisely 100 times better.

#1 -- I'm listing numbers of approximations. 500,000 approximations only be 10% more accurate than the 5,000. Remember, with each approximation, there are diminishing returns before data turns into noise.

#2 -- "better" does not mean "closer"

I didn't say the interpretation of the Bible. Try again.
"Religion doesn't change ..."~drafterman page 2 of this thread

We are talking about your original statement, not about the silly requirement you made a couple of posts ago.

You said religion does not change. You were shown how it does. Bottom line.

Prove it.

How do I prove something when you keep asking for different definitions? And, how can I even know that you'll accept evidence provided to you when you admit that science is always wrong, yet continue to preach on about it?

So you have no motives, no intents? You are a mindless automaton? Bullsh1t.

Back up and think about what you just posted, and I urge others to do so as well.

Did I ever say that there were no motives for loving God?

Absolutely not.

I said that heaven and hell are not motives for loving God.

...
I see that my strawman is misbehaving again *whack*
That ought to fix him! No more trolling the forums!
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2012 6:36:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/11/2012 4:15:37 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
No it wouldn't. That definition precedes them by a long shot.

And, when was the first law of nature proposed again? I'm talking about a law in a scientific sense.

No, you were talking about this:

"1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences."

Because that's what you posted. And this perfectfly fits in with Natural Science. Before we get any further, I'll note that science, as an epistemological method predates the label we invented to describe it.

I don't know when the "first" law of nature was proposed. But I do know that there are scientific laws that predate Galileo but a LONG shot, for example: Archmedes Principle.


Repeating yourself isn't a reference.

Well, if you can come up with people whodid controlled experiments before him, let me know.

Archimedes discovery and development of his bouyancy principle counts as a controlled experiment.

Just go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And you'll see a list of scientists noted for using experimentation (yes, controlled experimentation) prior to Galileo:

Al-Biruni sticks out to me as engaging in pretty rigorous controlled experimentation.

Your turn.



Or they just called it something else.

Like?

Natural Philosophy


Because you keep changing it.

Never changed it once. You were corrected on this already.

Well, you contradicted me, but since I was already correct, you didn't correct me.


Your first sentence is nonsensical. Infinity isn't a goal one gets closer to,

That's exactly what I said.

Points for redundancy.

Oh, so you admit you're speaking gibberish. Good. It isn't just me.


If it takes an infinite amount of approximations to reach the truth, 500,000 consecutively better approximations is no closer than 5,000.

It is precisely 100 times better.

#1 -- I'm listing numbers of approximations. 500,000 approximations only be 10% more accurate than the 5,000. Remember, with each approximation, there are diminishing returns before data turns into noise.

Better is better.


#2 -- "better" does not mean "closer"

Yes it does.


I didn't say the interpretation of the Bible. Try again.
"Religion doesn't change ..."~drafterman page 2 of this thread

We are talking about your original statement, not about the silly requirement you made a couple of posts ago.

You said religion does not change. You were shown how it does. Bottom line.

No. You showed how people change their minds about religion. Not the same thing.



Prove it.

How do I prove something when you keep asking for different definitions? And, how can I even know that you'll accept evidence provided to you when you admit that science is always wrong, yet continue to preach on about it?

Because it's the best thing we have.


So you have no motives, no intents? You are a mindless automaton? Bullsh1t.

Back up and think about what you just posted, and I urge others to do so as well.

Did I ever say that there were no motives for loving God?

We aren't talking about loving God.


Absolutely not.

I said that heaven and hell are not motives for loving God.

And we're not even talking about that.

We are talking about Heaven and Hell not being motives for changing one's behavior. So, if Heaven and Hell aren't motives for changing one's behavior, then what is the motiviation behind telling us about them?

It's a simple question.