Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is science truly honest?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 2:30:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science does not say the existence of God is an impossibility but an improbability, as there is no evidence to support His existence. Science can never claim to know anything for certain - only faith can do that. Science exists on evidence and theories.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 2:42:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Dawkins thinks that the existence of God is a scientific question, and he thinks the question can be answered by doing science. He attempted in his book, The God Delusion, to disprove the existence of God from science. Whether he succeeded, of course, is another question.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 2:57:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science cannot rule out magic, unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either, but it would be ludicrous to suggest these should be used to explain natural processes. Occam's razor states hypothesis with the least amount of assumptions are much better explanations of reality. To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be vaild as a solution or part of the solution.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 3:31:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science doesn't rule out God; but as there is no objective physical evidence that God exists, and no objective physical evidence that this God effects the physical processes that science tries to explain; and considering that the vast majority of cases where religion has made a statement of how the world is based on their beliefs they have turned out to be fundamentally wrong; science rules out God as a valid explanation of anything.

This will change the moment God can be just as objectively demonstrated as the innumerable processes discovered throughout the years that have replaced the need for divine explanation.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:10:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:30:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science does not say the existence of God is an impossibility but an improbability, as there is no evidence to support His existence. Science can never claim to know anything for certain - only faith can do that. Science exists on evidence and theories.

I am told that 90% are Atheist, which means that they of say he does not exist.

When did you ever hear a scientist on TV admit that the answer could be "God"? I never have, even when what they have said makes it fairly obvious that is what they are discussing appears to point to.

A classic example is Dark Force, a force which Cosmologists can identify the effects of but not identify as anything specific or having a specific source.

Does even one of them say it just might be God causing those effects? No not one, it is never even put forward as a possibility.

Science says that it is impossible for the biblical account of the sun appearing to stand still in the sky for almost a whole day to be true, because the gravitational forces would crush humans. Do they ever say, unless of course God controlled them? Nope.

God is never even considered in the equation, it is simply said to be impossible.
I suspect most humans are terrified of the thought of a being that powerful, let alone as powerful as the creator and maintainer of all is.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:13:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:42:02 PM, philochristos wrote:
Dawkins thinks that the existence of God is a scientific question, and he thinks the question can be answered by doing science. He attempted in his book, The God Delusion, to disprove the existence of God from science. Whether he succeeded, of course, is another question.

Hawkins has stated publicly that God is an unacceptable alternative, so how is that suggesting that God is a possibility.

His book "The God Delusion" also leaves no room for God being real.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:20:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:57:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science cannot rule out magic, unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either, but it would be ludicrous to suggest these should be used to explain natural processes. Occam's razor states hypothesis with the least amount of assumptions are much better explanations of reality. To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be vaild as a solution or part of the solution.

Which is why belief in God is the best explanation of reality, anything else requires more assumptions.

The proof that the creator exists in creation itself, as well as his proven record of the evidence of his dealings with mankind, from which not one thing has even been disproved, and so far all the proof that has been found backs up it's accuracy both prophetically and historically.

Denial of evidence does not make that evidence invalid.

However I do not doubt that those who deny it will still do so even after the evidence becomes 100% inarguable.

However the strongest evidence lies in Microbiology, which is taking us ever deeper not creation, and making intelligent design more obvious, which is also why a few microbiologists have already become JWs who believe 100% in scripture.

http://wol.jw.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:21:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:57:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science cannot rule out magic, unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either, but it would be ludicrous to suggest these should be used to explain natural processes. Occam's razor states hypothesis with the least amount of assumptions are much better explanations of reality. To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be vaild as a solution or part of the solution.

To rule him out makes the results more likely to be inaccurate.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:24:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 3:31:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science doesn't rule out God; but as there is no objective physical evidence that God exists, and no objective physical evidence that this God effects the physical processes that science tries to explain; and considering that the vast majority of cases where religion has made a statement of how the world is based on their beliefs they have turned out to be fundamentally wrong; science rules out God as a valid explanation of anything.

This will change the moment God can be just as objectively demonstrated as the innumerable processes discovered throughout the years that have replaced the need for divine explanation.

Just because you choose to deny the evidence does not mean it does not exist. Maybe you should take a little more notice if microbiology which is continually making the necessity of an intelligent designer more obvious.

Not that it wasn't obvious enough before, but I do not doubt that there will be those who deny it's truth even when God is finally proven beyond doubt, which it will be before long even to the most determined doubter.

However by that time it will be far to late to admit that they have been refusing to accept the evidence all along.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:24:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 3:31:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science doesn't rule out God; but as there is no objective physical evidence that God exists, and no objective physical evidence that this God effects the physical processes that science tries to explain; and considering that the vast majority of cases where religion has made a statement of how the world is based on their beliefs they have turned out to be fundamentally wrong; science rules out God as a valid explanation of anything.

This will change the moment God can be just as objectively demonstrated as the innumerable processes discovered throughout the years that have replaced the need for divine explanation.

Just because you choose to deny the evidence does not mean it does not exist. Maybe you should take a little more notice if microbiology which is continually making the necessity of an intelligent designer more obvious.

Not that it wasn't obvious enough before, but I do not doubt that there will be those who deny it's truth even when God is finally proven beyond doubt, which it will be before long even to the most determined doubter.

However by that time it will be far to late to admit that they have been refusing to accept the evidence all along.

Just because you say evidence exists; does not make it exist.

Present it, or pipe down.
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:56:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Science doesn't do what you say it does. It doesn't rule out things it can't disprove. Things it can't disprove just have no place in science.

If you want scientists to allow 'maybe God did it', then they would have to allow 'maybe Allah did it' or 'maybe a hyperdimensional high school student named Fred did it'.

That's not how science works. Science examines evidence, not pure possibilities. Especially not un-falsifiable possibilities.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:56:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:21:31 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:57:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science cannot rule out magic, unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either, but it would be ludicrous to suggest these should be used to explain natural processes. Occam's razor states hypothesis with the least amount of assumptions are much better explanations of reality. To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be valid as a solution or part of the solution.

To rule him out makes the results more likely to be inaccurate.

Well, hard to argue with subjective reasoning like that!! How about we use the "creator" Zeus? That could provide some interesting results, wouldn't you agree?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 5:59:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:10:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:30:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science does not say the existence of God is an impossibility but an improbability, as there is no evidence to support His existence. Science can never claim to know anything for certain - only faith can do that. Science exists on evidence and theories.

I am told that 90% are Atheist, which means that they of say he does not exist.

When did you ever hear a scientist on TV admit that the answer could be "God"? I never have, even when what they have said makes it fairly obvious that is what they are discussing appears to point to.

A classic example is Dark Force, a force which Cosmologists can identify the effects of but not identify as anything specific or having a specific source.

Does even one of them say it just might be God causing those effects? No not one, it is never even put forward as a possibility.

Science says that it is impossible for the biblical account of the sun appearing to stand still in the sky for almost a whole day to be true, because the gravitational forces would crush humans. Do they ever say, unless of course God controlled them? Nope.

God is never even considered in the equation, it is simply said to be impossible.
I suspect most humans are terrified of the thought of a being that powerful, let alone as powerful as the creator and maintainer of all is.

Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in God/gods. Also science does not speak in the language of possibilities, but in probabilities. Furthermore, could you cite the source that claims scientist dismiss the possibility of the God-hypothesis?
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:10:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you arguing from a Christian perspective or an agnostic one?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
muslimnomore
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:15:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

what does it mean to 'practise' science and where did you get this statistic from?
Everyone applies the scientific method in their lives to some extent; theist or non-theist.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:18:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:20:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:57:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science cannot rule out magic, unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either, but it would be ludicrous to suggest these should be used to explain natural processes. Occam's razor states hypothesis with the least amount of assumptions are much better explanations of reality. To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be valid as a solution or part of the solution.

Which is why belief in God is the best explanation of reality, anything else requires more assumptions.

The proof that the creator exists in creation itself, as well as his proven record of the evidence of his dealings with mankind, from which not one thing has even been disproved, and so far all the proof that has been found backs up it's accuracy both prophetically and historically.

Denial of evidence does not make that evidence invalid.

However I do not doubt that those who deny it will still do so even after the evidence becomes 100% inarguable.

However the strongest evidence lies in Microbiology, which is taking us ever deeper not creation, and making intelligent design more obvious, which is also why a few microbiologists have already become JWs who believe 100% in scripture.

http://wol.jw.org...

Wow, I feel so special, you responded to my post TWICE!! Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition. Now, I have to repeat myself, "To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be valid as a solution or part of the solution. The creator is not proven in nature. You can add a creator to nature, but nature can also exists without a creator. (Occam's razor, again) As far as "his proven record of the evidence", would this be the Bible? It is fallible if this is your record of evidence. Rhetoric, rhetoric, ahh a claim about microbiology! She says the living machines in living cells are so complex they had to have been designed. How does she know? Is there a complexity level that is beyond natural processes? This is another assumption, MCB.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:22:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 6:18:07 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:20:20 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:57:54 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science cannot rule out magic, unicorns, or the flying spaghetti monster either, but it would be ludicrous to suggest these should be used to explain natural processes. Occam's razor states hypothesis with the least amount of assumptions are much better explanations of reality. To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be valid as a solution or part of the solution.

Which is why belief in God is the best explanation of reality, anything else requires more assumptions.

The proof that the creator exists in creation itself, as well as his proven record of the evidence of his dealings with mankind, from which not one thing has even been disproved, and so far all the proof that has been found backs up it's accuracy both prophetically and historically.

Denial of evidence does not make that evidence invalid.

However I do not doubt that those who deny it will still do so even after the evidence becomes 100% inarguable.

However the strongest evidence lies in Microbiology, which is taking us ever deeper not creation, and making intelligent design more obvious, which is also why a few microbiologists have already become JWs who believe 100% in scripture.

http://wol.jw.org...

Wow, I feel so special, you responded to my post TWICE!! Assumption: Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition. Now, I have to repeat myself, "To use an unproven "creator" adds unnecessary complication to the proposed solutions. However, if you can prove a creator exist then he/she/it would not be an assumption, and would be valid as a solution or part of the solution. The creator is not proven in nature. You can add a creator to nature, but nature can also exists without a creator. (Occam's razor, again) As far as "his proven record of the evidence", would this be the Bible? It is fallible if this is your record of evidence. Rhetoric, rhetoric, ahh a claim about microbiology! She says the living machines in living cells are so complex they had to have been designed. How does she know? Is there a complexity level that is beyond natural processes? This is another assumption, MCB.

Nothing to feel special about I just forgot to answer one point so came back to it, lol.

No it is not an assumption, it is evidence based, though some assumptions are built on that evidence to take things further.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:28:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:29:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:24:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 3:31:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science doesn't rule out God; but as there is no objective physical evidence that God exists, and no objective physical evidence that this God effects the physical processes that science tries to explain; and considering that the vast majority of cases where religion has made a statement of how the world is based on their beliefs they have turned out to be fundamentally wrong; science rules out God as a valid explanation of anything.

This will change the moment God can be just as objectively demonstrated as the innumerable processes discovered throughout the years that have replaced the need for divine explanation.

Just because you choose to deny the evidence does not mean it does not exist. Maybe you should take a little more notice if microbiology which is continually making the necessity of an intelligent designer more obvious.

Not that it wasn't obvious enough before, but I do not doubt that there will be those who deny it's truth even when God is finally proven beyond doubt, which it will be before long even to the most determined doubter.

However by that time it will be far to late to admit that they have been refusing to accept the evidence all along.

Just because you say evidence exists; does not make it exist.

Present it, or pipe down.

No, and just because you prefer not to acknowledge it doesn't mean that it doesn't.

I present it continually but of course if you really are interested in truth you could research it yourself, starting by examining the evidence for the accuracy off scripture. I am sure your nearest decent sized one will have plenty,but you can always start by reading:

http://biblicalstudies.info...

It is as good a place to start as any.

Then maybe you'll be curious enough to do your own research, lol.

If not, you know where to find me.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:32:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 6:28:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:29:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:24:53 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 3:31:11 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science doesn't rule out God; but as there is no objective physical evidence that God exists, and no objective physical evidence that this God effects the physical processes that science tries to explain; and considering that the vast majority of cases where religion has made a statement of how the world is based on their beliefs they have turned out to be fundamentally wrong; science rules out God as a valid explanation of anything.

This will change the moment God can be just as objectively demonstrated as the innumerable processes discovered throughout the years that have replaced the need for divine explanation.

Just because you choose to deny the evidence does not mean it does not exist. Maybe you should take a little more notice if microbiology which is continually making the necessity of an intelligent designer more obvious.

Not that it wasn't obvious enough before, but I do not doubt that there will be those who deny it's truth even when God is finally proven beyond doubt, which it will be before long even to the most determined doubter.

However by that time it will be far to late to admit that they have been refusing to accept the evidence all along.

Just because you say evidence exists; does not make it exist.

Present it, or pipe down.

No, and just because you prefer not to acknowledge it doesn't mean that it doesn't.

I present it continually but of course if you really are interested in truth you could research it yourself, starting by examining the evidence for the accuracy off scripture. I am sure your nearest decent sized one will have plenty,but you can always start by reading:

http://biblicalstudies.info...

It is as good a place to start as any.

Then maybe you'll be curious enough to do your own research, lol.

If not, you know where to find me.

This is evidence that some events of the Bible are recorded in history.

This is in no way shape or form scientific, objective evidence of God.

I have done plenty of research on the subject. What is evident is that people like you never provide any evidence: they simply repeatedly claim that such evidence exists.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:33:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:56:11 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Science doesn't do what you say it does. It doesn't rule out things it can't disprove. Things it can't disprove just have no place in science.

If you want scientists to allow 'maybe God did it', then they would have to allow 'maybe Allah did it' or 'maybe a hyperdimensional high school student named Fred did it'.

That's not how science works. Science examines evidence, not pure possibilities. Especially not un-falsifiable possibilities.

On the contrary it does so all the time.

Science has a very poor record when it comes to things being un-falsifiability, caused by a minority maybe, but true none the less.

People are human and tend to follow their own pet theories. Very few are prepared to have them turned upside down, though many will have just that happen before long. Religionists as well as scientists.

As a book I am currently reading says "There is a lot of mis-information on both sides of the argument.

Mine is not amongst them. Though of course it is up to you to prove or disprove that for yourself, if you are really interested in what is true, whether you like it or not, as any real truth seeker must be.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:40:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 6:33:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:56:11 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Science doesn't do what you say it does. It doesn't rule out things it can't disprove. Things it can't disprove just have no place in science.

If you want scientists to allow 'maybe God did it', then they would have to allow 'maybe Allah did it' or 'maybe a hyperdimensional high school student named Fred did it'.

That's not how science works. Science examines evidence, not pure possibilities. Especially not un-falsifiable possibilities.

On the contrary it does so all the time.

Science has a very poor record when it comes to things being un-falsifiability, caused by a minority maybe, but true none the less.

People are human and tend to follow their own pet theories. Very few are prepared to have them turned upside down, though many will have just that happen before long. Religionists as well as scientists.

As a book I am currently reading says "There is a lot of mis-information on both sides of the argument.

Mine is not amongst them. Though of course it is up to you to prove or disprove that for yourself, if you are really interested in what is true, whether you like it or not, as any real truth seeker must be.

Science, as a result of the way it operations, however, builds civilziation.

Religion, and psuedo science does not.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 6:50:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:10:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:30:02 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Science does not say the existence of God is an impossibility but an improbability, as there is no evidence to support His existence. Science can never claim to know anything for certain - only faith can do that. Science exists on evidence and theories.

I am told that 90% are Atheist, which means that they of say he does not exist.

This is a misrepresentation of atheists. Atheists say "I do not believe God exists," not, "there is no God." Now, many have said this second statement when they really mean the first.

When did you ever hear a scientist on TV admit that the answer could be "God"? I never have, even when what they have said makes it fairly obvious that is what they are discussing appears to point to.

This is because there is no evidence to suggest it might be God. I've never heard a scientist on TV admit the answer might be a dwarf in a flying teacup that shoots lasers from its chest.

A classic example is Dark Force, a force which Cosmologists can identify the effects of but not identify as anything specific or having a specific source.

Does even one of them say it just might be God causing those effects? No not one, it is never even put forward as a possibility.

Again, because the evidence points to other solutions.

Science says that it is impossible for the biblical account of the sun appearing to stand still in the sky for almost a whole day to be true, because the gravitational forces would crush humans. Do they ever say, unless of course God controlled them? Nope.

Because this account is not compatible with science.

God is never even considered in the equation, it is simply said to be impossible.
I suspect most humans are terrified of the thought of a being that powerful, let alone as powerful as the creator and maintainer of all is.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 7:02:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Occams razor..........that's why.

It's the creationists/intelligent designers that are unfair.

They wouldn't accept any other theories as "science THEORIES" that make no testable predictions, can never be falsified because of all the ad hocness you can add to save it from being proven false..........but when it comes to their "theory" of choice.......oh then science is being unfair............horse sh*t.

Here are some other things we can't disprove.......

That we are all brains in vats

That we all live in the matrix

That our memories of the past are false planted their by some one......or something

Angels cause the planets to move the path they do

That madcornish isn't satan incarnate and by listening to him we will spend eternity in hell........ :)

Their is a near infinite amount of things we can come up with.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
RhysJaxson
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 7:41:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 6:33:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:56:11 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Science doesn't do what you say it does. It doesn't rule out things it can't disprove. Things it can't disprove just have no place in science.

If you want scientists to allow 'maybe God did it', then they would have to allow 'maybe Allah did it' or 'maybe a hyperdimensional high school student named Fred did it'.

That's not how science works. Science examines evidence, not pure possibilities. Especially not un-falsifiable possibilities.

On the contrary it does so all the time.

Science has a very poor record when it comes to things being un-falsifiability, caused by a minority maybe, but true none the less.

People are human and tend to follow their own pet theories. Very few are prepared to have them turned upside down, though many will have just that happen before long. Religionists as well as scientists.

As a book I am currently reading says "There is a lot of mis-information on both sides of the argument.

Mine is not amongst them. Though of course it is up to you to prove or disprove that for yourself, if you are really interested in what is true, whether you like it or not, as any real truth seeker must be.

Yeah, you're just demonstrating your ignorance about science. For your claim to be correct, science would have to be rejecting(science doesn't *do* anything, it's not an agent, so the premise is absurd from the start) falsifiable hypothesis about God. Can you explain some of those hypothesis?

"God did it" isn't a scientific hypothesis. You can't test it. You can't disprove it. You're trying to fit a square through a round hole.

So far, the only thing I've actually seen you say about science is 'look at these scientists who believe'. You talk about evidence, but never present it.
We are better than religion. We are better than gods.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2014 7:46:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Scientists are people, with all the goodness and all the faults of other groups of people. Some are in it for money, fame, etc. (there's a lot of wealth tied-up in technical and biological patents in this 'age of information".) Some are driven to learn. Some tell the truth the best they can and some lie to protect an agenda, or maybe even their own job. As physicist Lee Smolin said in his book The Trouble With Physics: "The dark-matter hypothesis is preferred (by scientists) mostly because the only other possibility - that we are wrong about Newton's laws, and by extension general relativity - is too scary to contemplate." Sometimes scientists have preferences like everyone else. Science is just a method of discovery. It doesn't change the person who practices it.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 2:18:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 5:10:27 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
When did you ever hear a scientist on TV admit that the answer could be "God"? I never have, even when what they have said makes it fairly obvious that is what they are discussing appears to point to.

How often have you heard a scientist admit that the answer could be leprechauns? Especially when it's obvious that this is really what they mean. PMSFL
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 2:25:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 6:33:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:56:11 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Science doesn't do what you say it does. It doesn't rule out things it can't disprove. Things it can't disprove just have no place in science.

If you want scientists to allow 'maybe God did it', then they would have to allow 'maybe Allah did it' or 'maybe a hyperdimensional high school student named Fred did it'.

That's not how science works. Science examines evidence, not pure possibilities. Especially not un-falsifiable possibilities.

On the contrary it does so all the time.

Science has a very poor record when it comes to things being un-falsifiability, caused by a minority maybe, but true none the less.

People are human and tend to follow their own pet theories. Very few are prepared to have them turned upside down, though many will have just that happen before long. Religionists as well as scientists.

As a book I am currently reading says "There is a lot of mis-information on both sides of the argument.

Mine is not amongst them. Though of course it is up to you to prove or disprove that for yourself, if you are really interested in what is true, whether you like it or not, as any real truth seeker must be.
No moron it's up to you to provide evidence. You won't, you can't and you never have. You discussing science is like a tree discussing the cosmos. That's right it can't talk.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 6:00:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 2:25:31 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/3/2014 6:33:45 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 1/3/2014 5:56:11 PM, RhysJaxson wrote:
Science doesn't do what you say it does. It doesn't rule out things it can't disprove. Things it can't disprove just have no place in science.

If you want scientists to allow 'maybe God did it', then they would have to allow 'maybe Allah did it' or 'maybe a hyperdimensional high school student named Fred did it'.

That's not how science works. Science examines evidence, not pure possibilities. Especially not un-falsifiable possibilities.

On the contrary it does so all the time.

Science has a very poor record when it comes to things being un-falsifiability, caused by a minority maybe, but true none the less.

People are human and tend to follow their own pet theories. Very few are prepared to have them turned upside down, though many will have just that happen before long. Religionists as well as scientists.

As a book I am currently reading says "There is a lot of mis-information on both sides of the argument.

Mine is not amongst them. Though of course it is up to you to prove or disprove that for yourself, if you are really interested in what is true, whether you like it or not, as any real truth seeker must be.
No moron it's up to you to provide evidence. You won't, you can't and you never have. You discussing science is like a tree discussing the cosmos. That's right it can't talk.

Why bother trying to prove anything to someone like you who doesn't want to know anyway, who is so arrogant they think anyone who disagrees with them is a moron?

Why waste my time?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 6:39:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/3/2014 7:46:24 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2014 2:22:24 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
For once a topic from me which does not have a scriptural root.

I don't know why I have never thought of this before, but it crossed my mind to wonder how science can truly be science when 99% of those practising it rule out arbitrarily one plausible influence on everything that they cannot disprove?

After all, a true, honest, unbigoted scientist would not rule out anything they could not prove to be impossible, just because to them, in the words of Richard Hawkins "The alternative is unacceptable"?

Surely it is not up to any individual to find something that they cannot prove false to be unacceptable?

It is not enough to fail to prove it right, if it cannot be proven false then it remains an alternative possibility.

What influence is that?

Why the influence of the Creator of course.

No-one can prove absolutely that the creator exists, but neither can they prove absolutely that he does not, and for science to be honest that which cannot be proven either way still must remain a possibility.

Just thought I would throw this recent, to me, thought out into the forum.

Scientists are people, with all the goodness and all the faults of other groups of people. Some are in it for money, fame, etc. (there's a lot of wealth tied-up in technical and biological patents in this 'age of information".) Some are driven to learn. Some tell the truth the best they can and some lie to protect an agenda, or maybe even their own job. As physicist Lee Smolin said in his book The Trouble With Physics: "The dark-matter hypothesis is preferred (by scientists) mostly because the only other possibility - that we are wrong about Newton's laws, and by extension general relativity - is too scary to contemplate." Sometimes scientists have preferences like everyone else. Science is just a method of discovery. It doesn't change the person who practices it.

You haven't been reading a book called The Bible as History, by Kevin McKinney have you? you r first couple of lives are almost exactly what he says, though he does go on to say that there is as much mis-information coming from the religious side of the argument as from the science side.

Really, though it is very true, and some go into religions for precisely the same reasons. The biggest difference between those who go into science is that all to often they take it much more seriously that most who go into religion.

The other "problem" is the internet. It makes research much easier, but it also provides the ideal ground for people who are publishing for all the wrong reasons, all the liars and bitter people who have an axe to grind, whether a real one or an imagined one.

You can find sites which are crammed with lies about anything you wish to look up from the JWs to Herbalife, so how do you sort out the lies from the truth? Sometimes the only way is to get involved and learn what they really are about, but to do so very cautiously at first, checking and testing everything.

What gets ot me all too often is people forget the most important thing about religion.

It has to be true to have any value lasting value at all.

Take Christianity.

It claims to be, and I sincerely believe is, all about truth, and nothing but truth. So how can all the thousands of different "Christian" groups all be truly Christian? Simple they can't.

The analogy is simple. If you ant to survive as Christianity says you can, then you have to pass the "exam" the judgement.

If you want to get a pass mark in any exam, who do you work to please? Yourself? or the examiner?

If you work simply to please yourself the chances are you won't pass, because an exam means finding out how close to the "status quo" your knowledge is.

The judgement is exactly the same, If you haven't learned things God's way, you won;t pass, simple as.

Anyone who sets you an exam, has text books in mind as a "standard", with God, the only one is the bible. Therefore you have to get to the root of what the bible is really teaching.

Not what some teacher wants you to think it is, but what it really is.

The big difference between Christianity and any other form of learning is that Christians have an enemy working against them. One who has infiltrated their ranks and changed so much that it really is beyond recognition. He has inspired and organising the distortion of the very textbook we need to get to the truth.

So is there no hope?

Does anyone really think God is so weak?

No, he has protected his word, at least to the extent, that the truth is still there, no matter what translation you use.

However he is after people who are determined to find the truth. So determined they are prepared to put in effort to dig for it.

John 4:23, 24
23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth."

Note that one has to worship with spirit and truth. Spirit is usually used in scripture to denote power, energy, enthusiasm.

Those who are happy to just take what they are given will almost invariably be give the wrong thing. Only those who diligently compare everything they are taught to scripture stand a chance.

Acts 17:10 10 Immediately by night the brothers sent both Paul and Silas to Beroea. On arriving, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they accepted the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

The JWs put it slightly differently. They even have a song entitled "Make The Truth Your Own" Which means test it, check it, make sure it is yours not some second-hand "truth". That is why they provide scriptures for anything they each, and encourage the use of more than one translation, despite what their enemies, the liars who slander them continually, say.

Of course they have enemies, just like in the 1st century.

Have you read any of the things Romans tried to spread about them, saying that they later their own children, and similar things, and why? Because like JWs today they will not get involved with Governments on any level, because they took seriously what Christianity taught, that Satan is the "ruler of this world" and the God of this system of things".

And the evidence of history proves that beyond, in the opinions of most, any reasonable doubt whatever.

Any who deny that have a much lower opinion of humanity than humanity really deserves.