Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A question for theists

beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?
uncung
Posts: 3,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:12:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

So far there is no the scientific evidence of another life in out of space.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:15:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

I honestly don't care, as it means absolutely 0% in regards to my Faith in Jesus Christ.....
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,007
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:17:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

Acknowledge
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 4:45:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

Angel's for example. What may have thought to be supernatural.

It doesn't matter whether Earth is not the only planet in this universe or others to support life because the Bible says absolutely nothing to rule it out.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:00:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 4:45:28 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

Angel's for example. What may have thought to be supernatural.

It doesn't matter whether Earth is not the only planet in this universe or others to support life because the Bible says absolutely nothing to rule it out.

The bible is an ancient book, interpreted millions of different ways, of no scientific, moral or historic value.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 5:16:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 5:00:33 AM, bulproof wrote:
The bible is an ancient book, interpreted millions of different ways, of no scientific, moral or historic value.

So? What's your point. First of all, you have stated nothing more than your opinion and that is probably grossly uninformed. Secondly, anything, including science, morality and history are subject to millions of interpretations.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 11:02:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

Why is this a "question for theists," and how does this link to the Religion forum?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:27:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

From the RTB (Reason to Believe) site and author Hugh Ross.

"The anthropic principle says that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life. More than a century of astronomy and physics research yields this unexpected observation: the emergence of humans and human civilization requires physical constants, laws, and properties that fall within certain narrow ranges"and this truth applies not only to the cosmos as a whole but also to the galaxy, planetary system, and planet humans occupy. To state the principle more dramatically, a preponderance of physical evidence points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmos."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:39:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:27:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

From the RTB (Reason to Believe) site and author Hugh Ross.

"The anthropic principle says that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life. More than a century of astronomy and physics research yields this unexpected observation: the emergence of humans and human civilization requires physical constants, laws, and properties that fall within certain narrow ranges"and this truth applies not only to the cosmos as a whole but also to the galaxy, planetary system, and planet humans occupy. To state the principle more dramatically, a preponderance of physical evidence points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmos."

An unsupported assertion. We are not the cause of anything, we're the end result of a long process of natural selection that made us fit our environment most successfully. Lots of evidence to support that in biology, genetics, paleontology, etc. If Humanity is the central them, why are we not the center of the universe? Why are we limited to a single, tiny planet around an ordinary star on the far edge of a common galaxy? If humanity is the central theme of creation, why is over 99.9% of it almost instantly lethal to us? If we're the central theme of creation, why are our bodies so badly engineered that they break down over little things like lack of a single mineral? There is NO evidence to support this ridiculous statement and too many contradictory facts to make it even somewhat plausible. It's the attempt of a theist to justify his stance on religion with something that sounds like science but has been disproven over and over. You haven't a single original thought in your head when all you can do is post these things and not discuss them.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 3:48:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:39:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:27:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

From the RTB (Reason to Believe) site and author Hugh Ross.

"The anthropic principle says that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life. More than a century of astronomy and physics research yields this unexpected observation: the emergence of humans and human civilization requires physical constants, laws, and properties that fall within certain narrow ranges"and this truth applies not only to the cosmos as a whole but also to the galaxy, planetary system, and planet humans occupy. To state the principle more dramatically, a preponderance of physical evidence points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmos."

An unsupported assertion. We are not the cause of anything, we're the end result of a long process of natural selection that made us fit our environment most successfully. Lots of evidence to support that in biology, genetics, paleontology, etc. If Humanity is the central them, why are we not the center of the universe? Why are we limited to a single, tiny planet around an ordinary star on the far edge of a common galaxy? If humanity is the central theme of creation, why is over 99.9% of it almost instantly lethal to us? If we're the central theme of creation, why are our bodies so badly engineered that they break down over little things like lack of a single mineral? There is NO evidence to support this ridiculous statement and too many contradictory facts to make it even somewhat plausible. It's the attempt of a theist to justify his stance on religion with something that sounds like science but has been disproven over and over. You haven't a single original thought in your head when all you can do is post these things and not discuss them.
All your archaic ill informed arguments have already been addressed. You are sucking up precious oxygen rehashing old arguments from a position of ignorance.

RTB link:
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity January 1, 2002 By Dr. Hugh Ross

http://www.reasons.org...
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 7:50:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

I believe what the Bible tells and on basis of it, there is some kind of life in space, angels for example. But I don"t have any reason to believe that there are other earthlike planets with similar life. But I don"t also have reason to claim that there can"t be. Maybe there is, it doesn"t really matter at the moment.

And how is that probability counted? Is it just based on "scientists" hopes?

According to some source, Milky Way has 100 billion planets. We know that one has life.
By that we can calculate that probability of life on Milky Way planets is 1/ 1000000000, 0,0000001 %, if we use only known facts and not assumptions and hopes. And this is just the planets of Milky Way, not the whole universe.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 8:46:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:48:27 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:39:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:27:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

From the RTB (Reason to Believe) site and author Hugh Ross.

"The anthropic principle says that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life. More than a century of astronomy and physics research yields this unexpected observation: the emergence of humans and human civilization requires physical constants, laws, and properties that fall within certain narrow ranges"and this truth applies not only to the cosmos as a whole but also to the galaxy, planetary system, and planet humans occupy. To state the principle more dramatically, a preponderance of physical evidence points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmos."

An unsupported assertion. We are not the cause of anything, we're the end result of a long process of natural selection that made us fit our environment most successfully. Lots of evidence to support that in biology, genetics, paleontology, etc. If Humanity is the central them, why are we not the center of the universe? Why are we limited to a single, tiny planet around an ordinary star on the far edge of a common galaxy? If humanity is the central theme of creation, why is over 99.9% of it almost instantly lethal to us? If we're the central theme of creation, why are our bodies so badly engineered that they break down over little things like lack of a single mineral? There is NO evidence to support this ridiculous statement and too many contradictory facts to make it even somewhat plausible. It's the attempt of a theist to justify his stance on religion with something that sounds like science but has been disproven over and over. You haven't a single original thought in your head when all you can do is post these things and not discuss them.
All your archaic ill informed arguments have already been addressed. You are sucking up precious oxygen rehashing old arguments from a position of ignorance.

RTB link:
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity January 1, 2002 By Dr. Hugh Ross

http://www.reasons.org...

The same old fine-tuning argument that has been debunked over and over again repackaged and republished for those who are simply afraid that they are not the special creation of some supernatural being. Childhood must end at some time. Looks like it will be longer for some than for others. Oh, please note that the article is about 13 years old and there has been no additional evidence for any of the assertions contained in the so-called model.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 9:43:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 7:50:51 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

I believe what the Bible tells and on basis of it, there is some kind of life in space, angels for example. But I don"t have any reason to believe that there are other earthlike planets with similar life. But I don"t also have reason to claim that there can"t be. Maybe there is, it doesn"t really matter at the moment.

And how is that probability counted? Is it just based on "scientists" hopes?

According to some source, Milky Way has 100 billion planets. We know that one has life.
By that we can calculate that probability of life on Milky Way planets is 1/ 1000000000, 0,0000001 %, if we use only known facts and not assumptions and hopes. And this is just the planets of Milky Way, not the whole universe.

Its based on the sheer numbers of planets and moon's in the known universe. Using the percentage you suggested, many hundreds of planets in the universe would support life. I personally think life on other planets is likely due to the universes vast size and tge sheer number of planets. I believe some planets are bound to have very simklar characteristics to earth. but as yet no way exists to either prove or disprove this belief.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:33:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 11:02:07 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests .that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

Why is this a "question for theists," and how does this link to the Religion forum?

It is in the religion forum because I was wondering what people who have religious faith think of the probability of life elsewhere in the universe. I know that scientists believe life in other areas of the universe to be a near certainty but a lot of theists generally discount certain scientific understanding and theory. Age of the planet, theory of evolution, big bang theory etc. I assume that most theists are open to the possibility of life in space but I was wondering if any denied it was possible.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:42:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 3:48:27 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:39:00 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 9/16/2015 3:27:42 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

From the RTB (Reason to Believe) site and author Hugh Ross.

"The anthropic principle says that the universe appears "designed" for the sake of human life. More than a century of astronomy and physics research yields this unexpected observation: the emergence of humans and human civilization requires physical constants, laws, and properties that fall within certain narrow ranges"and this truth applies not only to the cosmos as a whole but also to the galaxy, planetary system, and planet humans occupy. To state the principle more dramatically, a preponderance of physical evidence points to humanity as the central theme of the cosmos."

An unsupported assertion. We are not the cause of anything, we're the end result of a long process of natural selection that made us fit our environment most successfully. Lots of evidence to support that in biology, genetics, paleontology, etc. If Humanity is the central them, why are we not the center of the universe? Why are we limited to a single, tiny planet around an ordinary star on the far edge of a common galaxy? If humanity is the central theme of creation, why is over 99.9% of it almost instantly lethal to us? If we're the central theme of creation, why are our bodies so badly engineered that they break down over little things like lack of a single mineral? There is NO evidence to support this ridiculous statement and too many contradictory facts to make it even somewhat plausible. It's the attempt of a theist to justify his stance on religion with something that sounds like science but has been disproven over and over. You haven't a single original thought in your head when all you can do is post these things and not discuss them.
All your archaic ill informed arguments have already been addressed. You are sucking up precious oxygen rehashing old arguments from a position of ignorance.

RTB link:
Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity January 1, 2002 By Dr. Hugh Ross

http://www.reasons.org...

If that is the case, why would God make such a vast universe? What is the point in creating such a vast complex area that is both currently unnaccesable and uninhabitable to humanity? What purpose would it serve. Wart is simple compared to the universe. It is a planet among many trillions. Why create those trillions of only one is needed. Early theism claimed earth to be the centre of the universe but it is now clear it is not.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2015 10:51:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/16/2015 4:45:28 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

Angels for example. What may have thought to be supernatural.

A an evidence-supported conjecture with a mechanism is generally more accountable, transparent and constructive than a hopeful conjecture lacking evidence or proven mechanism.

We know that a planet can develop intelligent life because we've seen that, and we know roughly how it can do so. We know that such life can develop greater technological agency over time because we've done it, so we can extrapolate that and conjecture that it might have occurred elsewhere too, and earlier, and for longer. That doesn't require any assumption but one of repetition.

However, fanciful conjectures about intelligent metaphysical agencies supposed to act and intervene yet never independently confirmed to do so, with no stated mechanism for doing so, and no coherent reason to do so in one circumstance yet not another...

...well, another word for that, David, is 'fatuous'.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 1:34:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
David Henson - And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

Angels for example. What may have thought to be supernatural.

Ruv Draba - A an evidence-supported conjecture with a mechanism is generally more accountable, transparent and constructive than a hopeful conjecture lacking evidence or proven mechanism.

David Henson - To whom would this apply? A failed metaphysical experimentation desperately clung to as dogmatic in academic circles is hardly of interest to those outside of academia/ People aren't effected even by the distribution of facts or reason they are effected by an emotional attachment to a simplified paradigm.

An evidence supported conjecture is a relative spin on nothing more than conjecture, and irrelevant outside of the lab where it is supposedly tested, which has nothing to do with you. You only read it in a publication.

Ruv Draba - We know that a planet can develop intelligent life because we've seen that, and we know roughly how it can do so.

We are here. That is what we know, and beyond that we know roughly nothing more. It isn't a giant leap of logic for mankind to have come to such a startling conclusion. We've known it for some time.

Ruv Draba - We know that such life can develop greater technological agency over time because we've done it, so we can extrapolate that and conjecture that it might have occurred elsewhere too, and earlier, and for longer. That doesn't require any assumption but one of repetition.

David Henson - Correct. We have conjecture and assumption. Is your response an exercise in verbosity or were you trying to make a point? That we are here? Congratulations. You may get tenure as an sidewalk social scientist.

Ruv Draba - However, fanciful conjectures about intelligent metaphysical agencies supposed to act and intervene yet never independently confirmed to do so, with no stated mechanism for doing so, and no coherent reason to do so in one circumstance yet not another...

...well, another word for that, David, is 'fatuous'.

David Henson - No. The word for that estimation, Ruv, is ignorance. One conjecture is no more fanciful than the other, it only happens that if you are a scientist - and I don't mean you, I mean a real scientist - you haven't a clue. The only intelligent possibility for the appearance of life is given by the creator, Jehovah God, in the Bible.

Other than that you have a faint hearted and incoherent fanciful conjecture that it came to this planet from another on the backs of crystals. Which, by the way, doesn't address the obvious question of where it came before that.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 2:11:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 1:34:29 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
David Henson - And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

Angels for example. What may have thought to be supernatural.

Ruv Draba - A an evidence-supported conjecture with a mechanism is generally more accountable, transparent and constructive than a hopeful conjecture lacking evidence or proven mechanism.

David Henson - To whom would this apply?
It applies to the practitioners of a discipline called science, David.

That's the discipline that gave us medicine, transport, civic and global infrastructure, agricultural productivity and the surpluses needed to secure peace -- essentially, all the things we rely on to be effective and reliable, and which religion has failed to supply for 3,000 years.

Science uses conjectures all the time as a precursor to hypotheses and thence observations, experiments, and models. However, the conjectures have to be relevant, empirical, transparent and accountable; else they're not even considered scientifically valid.

And the reason you need those criteria is that they create a pathway for constructive validation and falsification.

And the reason theology dodges those criteria is it doesn't want to be falsified. It just wants to claim authority.

An evidence supported conjecture is a relative spin on nothing more than conjecture, and irrelevant outside of the lab where it is supposedly tested, which has nothing to do with you.
It has everything to do with me, David, since I have worked as a research scientist, trained and assessed research scientists and used it in applied science and engineering.

So you're telling me that I should ignore the professional ethics and rigour of my discipline in assessing your conjecture, in order to let you say your conjecture is equivalent to anything science produces?

You not only want to argue for false equivalence in the first place, but you need me to scientifically endorse your pomposity in doing so?

"My incoherent, unevidenced, unconstructive, self-serving, reekingly ignorant beliefs are still beliefs, and all beliefs are equivalent."

Er.. yes, except that the ones based on evidence, transparency and accountability gave us electricity, while the ones based on blind faith and ignorance gave us 40,000+ irreconcilably schismatic dogmas full of conflict, cruelty, intolerance, conceit, and the inability to admit error.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 2:11:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
It applies to the practitioners of a discipline called science, David.

That's the discipline that gave us medicine, transport, civic and global infrastructure, agricultural productivity and the surpluses needed to secure peace -- essentially, all the things we rely on to be effective and reliable, and which religion has failed to supply for 3,000 years.

That I keep having to argue science on a forum on religion with an atheist who is almost totally ignorant on the subject could perhaps be avoided if I were to point out to the Utopian Idealistic amateur in eugenics that science is simply the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

You can attribute all of the aforementioned advancements to a vaguely quixotic world view of science you were spoon fed when you were a teenager that appealed to your cowardly avoidance of accountability . . . alas . . . in vain.

Religion, which I've repeatedly expressed a loathing for, didn't provide any of those things you mentioned because it wasn't their place to do so, but at least the proponents of religion aren't so deluded and arrogant - or desperate - to have to labor under the pretense of having done so.

In the future, as now, unless you have the intellectual honesty to list the scientists who take credit for the marvels of your science fiction approach to facts, you would do me the favor of sparing me the insult.

Science uses conjectures <snip>

I'm not interested in science. In the least. Stop preaching it to me. If I want to amuse myself on the subject I will go to the science forum where you should expound your philosophy of ill repute.

And the reason theology dodges those criteria is it doesn't want to be falsified. It just wants to claim authority.

The only one claiming any authority on false pretenses in our little discussion here, is you.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 4:41:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/17/2015 2:11:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
It applies to the practitioners of a discipline called science, David.
That's the discipline that gave us medicine, transport, civic and global infrastructure, agricultural productivity and the surpluses needed to secure peace -- essentially, all the things we rely on to be effective and reliable, and which religion has failed to supply for 3,000 years.
That I keep having to argue science on a forum on religion

Did you have to on this occasion? Let me remind you of the triggering quote:

At 9/16/2015 4:45:28 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

David, you chose to critique science; a discipline which in your own testimony:

At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
I'm not interested in [...]. In the least.

What a pity then, that you chose to critique a matter you already knew you don't understand.

As for the role of science in discussing the world and its history, the nature of knowledge and of man, and the origin and nature of faith...

I'm sorry to tell you, David, but that's its job.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 4:50:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 4:41:44 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/17/2015 2:11:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
It applies to the practitioners of a discipline called science, David.
That's the discipline that gave us medicine, transport, civic and global infrastructure, agricultural productivity and the surpluses needed to secure peace -- essentially, all the things we rely on to be effective and reliable, and which religion has failed to supply for 3,000 years.
That I keep having to argue science on a forum on religion

Did you have to on this occasion? Let me remind you of the triggering quote:

At 9/16/2015 4:45:28 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

David, you chose to critique science; a discipline which in your own testimony:

At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
I'm not interested in [...]. In the least.

What a pity then, that you chose to critique a matter you already knew you don't understand.

Perhaps you should wipe your glasses on your long, white laboratory coat or take some classes on reading comprehension? I didn't critique any discipline of science, I critiqued people who post on religious forums while other people do science. "Science minded people to be exact."

As for the role of science in discussing the world and its history, the nature of knowledge and of man, and the origin and nature of faith...

I'm sorry to tell you, David, but that's its job.

[Laughs] Well, you better get busy then.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 6:18:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
I'm not interested in science.
That is redundant, so STFU about your ignorance, the adults are talking.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 6:25:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 4:50:34 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:41:44 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/17/2015 2:11:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
It applies to the practitioners of a discipline called science, David.
That's the discipline that gave us medicine, transport, civic and global infrastructure, agricultural productivity and the surpluses needed to secure peace -- essentially, all the things we rely on to be effective and reliable, and which religion has failed to supply for 3,000 years.
That I keep having to argue science on a forum on religion

Did you have to on this occasion? Let me remind you of the triggering quote:

At 9/16/2015 4:45:28 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
And yet if you suggest to most science minded people that some other form of higher intelligence may exist in some other form capable of doing things that may defy current scientific explanation they will scoff at such an idea as practical.

David, you chose to critique science; a discipline which in your own testimony:

At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
I'm not interested in [...]. In the least.

What a pity then, that you chose to critique a matter you already knew you don't understand.

I didn't critique any discipline of science, I critiqued people who post on religious forums while other people do science. "Science minded people to be exact."

Your earlier post was only ignorant, David, but this one dishonours you.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 6:50:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 6:25:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Your earlier post was only ignorant, David, but this one dishonours you.

At 9/17/2015 6:18:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
I'm not interested in science.
That is redundant, so STFU about your ignorance, the adults are talking.

The above is what it looks like when people who think the imperfect power of human observation on the universe is greater than that of the one who created that universe.

This is what it looks like when they step outside the realm of science fiction and stumble ill-prepared into the realm of reason, and the reality of Jehovah God's grand creation without their propaganda induced Utopian Fantasy Science Fiction!

I only hope they yet have more than the semblance of reason their unfortunate souls were spoon fed in the public schools of propaganda, so that they might have the hope of a promise that can save them from the destruction their ideology marches blindly towards every day.

And if not, then at least they have the dignity to set outside and gnash their teeth and lick their wounds without disturbing the rest of us who are in search of real truth.

Amen.

Heh, heh, heh.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 6:56:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 6:50:27 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/17/2015 6:25:36 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Your earlier post was only ignorant, David, but this one dishonours you.

At 9/17/2015 6:18:08 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/17/2015 4:13:04 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
I'm not interested in science.
That is redundant, so STFU about your ignorance, the adults are talking.

The above is what it looks like when people who think the imperfect power of human observation on the universe is greater than that of the one who created that universe.

This is what it looks like when they step outside the realm of science fiction and stumble ill-prepared into the realm of reason, and the reality of Jehovah God's grand creation without their propaganda induced Utopian Fantasy Science Fiction!

I only hope they yet have more than the semblance of reason their unfortunate souls were spoon fed in the public schools of propaganda, so that they might have the hope of a promise that can save them from the destruction their ideology marches blindly towards every day.

And if not, then at least they have the dignity to set outside and gnash their teeth and lick their wounds without disturbing the rest of us who are in search of real truth.

Amen.

Heh, heh, heh.

Cave men invented gods and after lives long before the Canaanite god you follow was invented.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 6:59:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 6:50:27 AM, DavidHenson wrote:
This is what it looks like when they step outside the realm of science fiction and stumble ill-prepared into the realm of reason, and the reality of Jehovah God's grand creation without their propaganda induced Utopian Fantasy Science Fiction!

I only hope they yet have more than the semblance of reason their unfortunate souls were spoon fed in the public schools of propaganda, so that they might have the hope of a promise that can save them from the destruction their ideology marches blindly towards every day.

And if not, then at least they have the dignity to set outside and gnash their teeth and lick their wounds without disturbing the rest of us who are in search of real truth.

How do you recognise truth, David?

Is it a feeling of smug self-satisfaction you get, when your reasoning in ignorance, absent evidence, critical thought or independent accountability, makes an Ouroboros circles to nestle its nose in the fundament of your assumptions?

If not, then I draw your attention to the following statements juxtaposed:

the reality of Jehovah God's grand creation
the rest of us who are in search of real truth

So David and nameless comrades are in search not of truth, it would seem, but confirmation of the belief they already claim as truth.

Yet such a grand endeavour naturally demands sacrifice.

It's the integrity that goes first, I see, with compassion and humility not long thereafter.
DavidHenson
Posts: 446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 3:53:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 6:56:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Cave men invented gods and after lives long before the Canaanite god you follow was invented.

First of all you have to make the assumption that people didn't live in tents or houses or palaces before they lived in caves, which is difficult to do since you weren't there and you can't test it and the writings of the Bible are far superior to the pictographic.

Secondly, the Bible itself supports your hypothesis of there being gods prior to Jehovah revealing himself to the people that would become Israel, and the writers of the Bible.

Perhaps there is some confusion on what the word God actually means? According to the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, the Common Greek, the Latin and the modern English a god is anyone or anything that is considered mighty or venerated.

Y'all should do some research instead of running with the knee jerk reaction to an estimation of ignorance regarding alleged mythology.

And stop picking on the stupid Christians.
"Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 4:07:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/17/2015 3:53:04 PM, DavidHenson wrote:
At 9/17/2015 6:56:40 AM, bulproof wrote:
Cave men invented gods and after lives long before the Canaanite god you follow was invented.

First of all you have to make the assumption that people didn't live in tents or houses or palaces before they lived in caves, which is difficult to do since you weren't there and you can't test it and the writings of the Bible are far superior to the pictographic.

And what are your qualifications to make this assertion? Are you an archaeologist? Are you a paleontologist? Have you engaged in any field of study that gives you authority in this area?

Oh, I forgot. You're 'not interested' in science. Ignorance truly is bliss, I suppose.

Secondly, the Bible itself supports your hypothesis of there being gods prior to Jehovah revealing himself to the people that would become Israel, and the writers of the Bible.

Perhaps there is some confusion on what the word God actually means? According to the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, the Common Greek, the Latin and the modern English a god is anyone or anything that is considered mighty or venerated.

That is one definition. Let's look at a couple of others.

noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:

Y'all should do some research instead of running with the knee jerk reaction to an estimation of ignorance regarding alleged mythology.

And you should work on your comprehension.

And stop picking on the stupid Christians.
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2015 4:16:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/15/2015 10:26:46 PM, beng100 wrote:
A question for theists. Scientific evidence suggests that the probability of earth being the only planet in the universe to support life is extremely low. Do you acknowledge this or do you believe the rest of the universe is purely empty space?

I don't understand why you think the one idea has anything to do with the other. How would a belief in the existence of "god" relate to the possibility of other life forms in the universe?