God? and stuff.... - Page 16 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #151 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:12 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
MarcusF - 9/21/2005 5:05 PM

Quote:
GermanStar - 9/21/2005 1:07 PM
OK -- what's the point? The conflict between Christianity and science is entirely one sided. The fact is that science has no agenda other than the search for truth through the determination and application of empirical evidence. Christianity, OTOH, does have an agenda, and that agenda has historically included condemning those who criticize or disprove certain tenets of Christianity to ridicule, imprisonment, or even death. In case you haven't noticed, the warmth with which Christianity greeted the findings of Galileo and Copernicus is still evident today. The difference is merely one of degree.
You seem to be somewhat confused. Christianity is the Christian religion based upon the belief in Jesus as the Christ and upon His teachings. Catholicism is the doctrine, faith, practice, and organization of the Roman Catholic Church. They are not one in the same. Like most Christians, I believe it is perfectly fine for you or anyone else to believe in whatever you want. If one chooses to believe that somehow the First Law of Thermodynamics was suspended and all the energy and matter in the universe miraculously created itself from nothing, followed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics being suspended while the great “order without outside influence� took place, it's OK by me.

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.�
-G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.
You rock. Rest assured though, issue avoidance will stick out its ugly head in the ones who believe in the god of science.

I'd like to add that yes Christianity is a religion, but God intended it to be a relationship. When people have forgotten that, the torture and bad things you hear about God, happen.
Gert123456 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:13 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
MarcusF - 9/21/2005 5:05 PM

Quote:
GermanStar - 9/21/2005 1:07 PM
OK -- what's the point? The conflict between Christianity and science is entirely one sided. The fact is that science has no agenda other than the search for truth through the determination and application of empirical evidence. Christianity, OTOH, does have an agenda, and that agenda has historically included condemning those who criticize or disprove certain tenets of Christianity to ridicule, imprisonment, or even death. In case you haven't noticed, the warmth with which Christianity greeted the findings of Galileo and Copernicus is still evident today. The difference is merely one of degree.
You seem to be somewhat confused. Christianity is the Christian religion based upon the belief in Jesus as the Christ and upon His teachings. Catholicism is the doctrine, faith, practice, and organization of the Roman Catholic Church. They are not one in the same. Like most Christians, I believe it is perfectly fine for you or anyone else to believe in whatever you want. If one chooses to believe that somehow the First Law of Thermodynamics was suspended and all the energy and matter in the universe miraculously created itself from nothing, followed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics being suspended while the great “order without outside influence� took place, it's OK by me.

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.�
-G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.
You rock. Rest assured though, issue avoidance will stick out its ugly head in the ones who believe in the god of science.

I'd like to add that yes Christianity is a religion, but God intended it to be a relationship. When people have forgotten that, the torture and bad things you hear about God, happen.
Gert123456 is offline  
post #153 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:14 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
MarcusF - 9/21/2005 5:05 PM

Quote:
GermanStar - 9/21/2005 1:07 PM
OK -- what's the point? The conflict between Christianity and science is entirely one sided. The fact is that science has no agenda other than the search for truth through the determination and application of empirical evidence. Christianity, OTOH, does have an agenda, and that agenda has historically included condemning those who criticize or disprove certain tenets of Christianity to ridicule, imprisonment, or even death. In case you haven't noticed, the warmth with which Christianity greeted the findings of Galileo and Copernicus is still evident today. The difference is merely one of degree.
You seem to be somewhat confused. Christianity is the Christian religion based upon the belief in Jesus as the Christ and upon His teachings. Catholicism is the doctrine, faith, practice, and organization of the Roman Catholic Church. They are not one in the same. Like most Christians, I believe it is perfectly fine for you or anyone else to believe in whatever you want. If one chooses to believe that somehow the First Law of Thermodynamics was suspended and all the energy and matter in the universe miraculously created itself from nothing, followed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics being suspended while the great “order without outside influence� took place, it's OK by me.

“The second law of thermodynamics not only is a principle of wide reaching scope and application, but also is one which has never failed to satisfy the severest test of experiment. The numerous quantitative relations derived from this law have been subjected to more and more accurate experimental investigations without the detection of the slightest inaccuracy.�
-G.N. Lewis and M. Randall, Thermodynamics (1961), p. 87.
You rock. Rest assured though, issue avoidance will stick out its ugly head in the ones who believe in the god of science.

I'd like to add that yes Christianity is a religion, but God intended it to be a relationship. When people have forgotten that, the torture and bad things you hear about God, happen.
Gert123456 is offline  
post #154 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:21 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
That Guy - 9/21/2005 5:19 PM

Quote:
Gert123456 - 9/21/2005 5:08 PM

I think we're talk past each other. I've obviously mistaken other people's idea of evolutions vs. the orgin of man. What I'm saying is that science is not sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. Not only is it insufficient, it disproves itself, in which case it should be brushed aside.
I totally disagree with this. The scientific method is sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. What is insufficient is our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Science does not disprove itself, it disproves false hypotheses that cannot be backed up by empirical evidence. Science is a process of understanding and learning and proves its worth everyday to all of us as we enjoy our cars, electricity, agriculture, and the security of nuclear weapons (I guess).
I suppose if matter and energy just miraculously exploded into existance, you'd have half a chance with that line of thought.

What is insufficient is your ability to see HOW science disproves itself, hence your response.

Your logic is like saying 1 + 1 = 3, we just don't understand how or why yet. Science disproves itself.
Gert123456 is offline  
post #155 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:22 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
That Guy - 9/21/2005 5:19 PM

Quote:
Gert123456 - 9/21/2005 5:08 PM

I think we're talk past each other. I've obviously mistaken other people's idea of evolutions vs. the orgin of man. What I'm saying is that science is not sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. Not only is it insufficient, it disproves itself, in which case it should be brushed aside.
I totally disagree with this. The scientific method is sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. What is insufficient is our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Science does not disprove itself, it disproves false hypotheses that cannot be backed up by empirical evidence. Science is a process of understanding and learning and proves its worth everyday to all of us as we enjoy our cars, electricity, agriculture, and the security of nuclear weapons (I guess).
I suppose if matter and energy just miraculously exploded into existance, you'd have half a chance with that line of thought.

What is insufficient is your ability to see HOW science disproves itself, hence your response.

Your logic is like saying 1 + 1 = 3, we just don't understand how or why yet. Science disproves itself.
Gert123456 is offline  
post #156 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:22 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
That Guy - 9/21/2005 5:19 PM

Quote:
Gert123456 - 9/21/2005 5:08 PM

I think we're talk past each other. I've obviously mistaken other people's idea of evolutions vs. the orgin of man. What I'm saying is that science is not sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. Not only is it insufficient, it disproves itself, in which case it should be brushed aside.
I totally disagree with this. The scientific method is sufficient to explain the origin of the universe. What is insufficient is our knowledge and understanding of the universe. Science does not disprove itself, it disproves false hypotheses that cannot be backed up by empirical evidence. Science is a process of understanding and learning and proves its worth everyday to all of us as we enjoy our cars, electricity, agriculture, and the security of nuclear weapons (I guess).
I suppose if matter and energy just miraculously exploded into existance, you'd have half a chance with that line of thought.

What is insufficient is your ability to see HOW science disproves itself, hence your response.

Your logic is like saying 1 + 1 = 3, we just don't understand how or why yet. Science disproves itself as an explanation for the origin of the universe.
Gert123456 is offline  
post #157 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:24 PM
worst mod in BW history
 
ThrillKill's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2005
Vehicle: ML CLK Iridescent Hyundai Accent lol,GoPed Freightshaker & Volvo semi's, c'mawn?
Location: Chicago
Posts: 27,762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: God? and stuff....

The biggest discrepancy to me is that for eons the faiths have denounced science as a tool of their respective devils. Now that certain principals have been proven, the faiths have embraced these principals into their fold and essentially said, "God made science so therefore he exists". It seems that religion is far more adaptable than the Peppered moth when it's fiscally necessary.

ThrillKill is offline  
post #158 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:28 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
GermanStar - 9/21/2005 5:32 PM

Quote:
Gert123456 - 9/21/2005 2:28 PM

Well, then read my first post, and you'll see, your scientific hopotheses has been proven as false. Move on.

What I'm saying is that not only can you not prove origin with science, but following logical lines, one can 'easily' see how science never could. In other words, it's not a matter of undiscovered answers. Science proves God by, using it's own scientific laws, proving that it could not have come into existance without something higher than science. To deny that logic would be to reject God, and make you a rather blind person.

It amazes me the zeal with which scientists and evolutionists will stare the impossiblity of their explnation for origin of the universe in the face, and accept the impossible, rather than accepting God.

God's not going to jump out of a bush and shout, "I exist, I exist" God's got nothing to prove to you.

Only once you reject the impossible, can you even start to discover truth.
Yeah, all those moron 140+ I.Q. scientists running around. Lucky for us you're around to straighten 'em all out! Good luck with that!
I see you've run out of intelligent things to say. Refer to the posts on Einstein's quotes, then talk to me about who's straightening who out. Let it be said that Einstein had an IQ higher than 140, in case you didn't know.

You're redundant on this thread. Stick to topics where you actually have a leg to stand on.
Gert123456 is offline  
post #159 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:36 PM
BenzWorld Junior Member
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
ThrillKill - 9/21/2005 6:24 PM

The biggest discrepancy to me is that for eons the faiths have denounced science as a tool of their respective devils. Now that certain principals have been proven, the faiths have embraced these principals into their fold and essentially said, "God made science so therefore he exists". It seems that religion is far more adaptable than the Peppered moth when it's fiscally necessary.
I see what you're saying, but God does not take responsiblity for what people embrace and don't embrace. And that still doesn't take on the main issue. You're still not coming up with any real argument. Avoiding the issue is all scientists can do when the arguement is taken to their territory.

Quote:
ThrillKill - 9/21/2005 6:24 PM
Now that certain principals have been proven, the faiths have embraced these principals into their fold and essentially said, "God made science so therefore he exists". It seems that religion is far more adaptable than the Peppered moth when it's fiscally necessary.
I'm not sure whether you'd be able to substantiate your claim that the faiths are crediting God's existance to the fact that He created science. they simply saying that He created science. Period.
Gert123456 is offline  
post #160 of 273 (permalink) Old 09-21-2005, 04:41 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1763 Post(s)
RE: God? and stuff....

Quote:
Gert123456 - 9/21/2005 5:36 PM

Quote:
ThrillKill - 9/21/2005 6:24 PM

The biggest discrepancy to me is that for eons the faiths have denounced science as a tool of their respective devils. Now that certain principals have been proven, the faiths have embraced these principals into their fold and essentially said, "God made science so therefore he exists". It seems that religion is far more adaptable than the Peppered moth when it's fiscally necessary.
I see what you're saying, but God does not take responsiblity for what people embrace and don't embrace. And that still doesn't take on the main issue. You're still not coming up with any real argument. Avoiding the issue is all scientists can do when the arguement is taken to their territory.

Quote:
ThrillKill - 9/21/2005 6:24 PM
Now that certain principals have been proven, the faiths have embraced these principals into their fold and essentially said, "God made science so therefore he exists". It seems that religion is far more adaptable than the Peppered moth when it's fiscally necessary.
I'm not sure whether you'd be able to substantiate your claim that the faiths are crediting God's existance to the fact that He created science. they simply saying that He created science. Period.
Maybe you could define God for me?
Shane is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome