Kind of, but in this context, exactly. That is why it doesn't make sense to believe in God
Kind of, but in this context, exactly. That is why it doesn't make sense to believe in God
Because...making sense of observed phenomenon IS science. Scientists tend to believe in things based on established fact...not because they want to.
Seriously?
This comment is simply based on intelligent thought...I defy you to deny it as accurate and somehow seem to maintain an air of intellect.
It has to make sense if you don't want to be a hypocrite. I am saying taking a scientific approach to God and coming out with a conclusion that allows you to believe is hypocritical. To me such clear hypocrisy does not make sense.
I am not telling you that you have to. My whole argument here is that IF you do, it makes no sense. In other words, if you think science is a superior form of thinking or you follow the scientific method then it doesn't make sense to believe in God. I could care less what you do personally, clax
No it is not, yet it is the best we have at this point as far as logical thought and construct. If we are to base something on a particular system of thought, it seems a very sound choice.
The alternative to a scientific approach involves individual human opinion, which cannot be unanimous in any way.
Your comment above explains much as far as this discussion goes. That you are not trying to play the "Biblical God" card allows for more wiggle room, and adds something to your opinions.
I am not telling you that you have to. My whole argument here is that IF you do, it makes no sense. In other words, if you think science is a superior form of thinking or you follow the scientific method then it doesn't make sense to believe in God. I could care less what you do personally, clax
I do think science is superior in many things, not however in the realm of belief. that isn't contradictory, it is proper use of the tools.
you are 100% correct, personal things such as belief in God are hard to apply a scientific level if thinking to, that is why I don't. Science should be used to determine things which are questions of a scientific level. As both you and myp and I have a consensus on is that three is no science that regards God. So why apply it? It is a personal choice, my belief in God when it comes to science should be as irrelevant as what my favorite cheese is.
The Bible's relevance is only spiritual, it drives me insane when people think it is a science book, that isn't it's purpose.
On the contrary...some base belief on fact, and actually require it reach the point of belief (myself included). Science allow humanity to establish these facts, and thus we rely on science for belief.
With no established proof, fact, or even acceptable theory...God becomes an unproven and unbelievable hypothesis.
You ask for proof that It does not exist....I ask for proof it does.
I cannot prove a negative for you, so prove the positive you believe in.
Facts are not believeable, they are.
Do you consider fact to be something you can prove to others or can you have "exclusive knowledge"?
Trying to understand what you just typed...let's just see:
This comment is confusing, but to my understanding you claim a fact is unbelievable. If this is your stance there can be no further discussion of value, as anything I present will be dismissed out of hand.
If by chance I cannot prove it, or it cannot be proven it is not fact.
It may be opinion, stipulation, imagined reality, hypothesis, or even belief....but it is certainly not fact,
Belief is something you accept with no proof, if you have proof, you know it, why believe in fact, you should know fact. To believe in fact seems like odd language, why do you need to believe in fact if it is fact?
Does that make sense?
If a bird flys into a window, and only you saw it and there is no conclusive evidence that it occured does that mean it is your opinion that it happened?
That is what I meant. Things you, only you witness happen, but without proof it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Or that it is anybody's opinion.
I am trying to establish that fact exists without consensus. Otherwise fact would be what people all agree is fact.
Similar threads
