GOD EXISTS

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:As a general tip, when you make claims you are citing a "more scholarly source" citing the source is a good idea. Would you care to share what it was?

A Bazooka Joe bubblegum comic is "more scholarly" than Wiki.

gcomeau wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:A Bazooka Joe bubblegum comic is "more scholarly" than Wiki.

So you're NOT going to tell us what this "more scholarly" source was then? Is it some kind of secret?

Edit: Oh FFS... you got it from an article on about.com written by a high school biology teacher.

MORE SCHOLARLY???? About.com??? Good grief.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:And yet science has yet to prove something other than a conscious being is the primal cause of Creation. No hypothesis has been tested and generated sufficiently predictable results to warrant a theory and certainly not enough to warrant a law describing the nature of that primal cause.

And the intellectually honest response to this state of affairs is "we don't know this yet, we'll work on it."

Science is working on it, and as the effort continues we get a better and better look further and further back in time at what really happened.

Religion on the other hand declares "Aha! Therefore a magic super-being did it! Because we said so!"

"Thank you for emphasizing the issue. Absent everything, something was created. Nothing that wonderous can be unintentional."

An assertion unsupported by any level of either evidence or logical argument.

PeterZ wrote:I believe my support comes from faith.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I believe my support comes from faith.

Which is just another way of saying "I believe it 'cause I wanna."

Nobody can stop you from just believing any random thing you want of course, but it doesn't really serve the function of a supporting argument for your position in a serious discussion to just declare that's what you're doing.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Which is just another way of saying "I believe it 'cause I wanna."

Nobody can stop you from just believing any random thing you want of course, but it doesn't really serve the function of a supporting argument for your position in a serious discussion to just declare that's what you're doing.

I am not going to repeat my posts.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
I am not going to repeat my posts.

Wouldn't see much point in it. How many ways can you say you hold your position simply because you want it to be true...

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Wouldn't see much point in it. How many ways can you say you hold your position simply because you want it to be true...

I find your assertion silly. I have stipulated that faith is required to assert either a belief in God or dome other primal cause.

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
I find your assertion silly. I have stipulated that faith is required to assert either a belief in God or dome other primal cause.

Which is an excellent indication you shouldn't be asserting them.


As I mentioned earlier, the intellectually honest response to such a situation is to leave it at "I don't know" until you get the data necessary to reach a conclusion through some means other than your personal biases for what you *want* the answer to be.

PeterZ wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Which is an excellent indication you shouldn't be asserting them.


As I mentioned earlier, the intellectually honest response to such a situation is to leave it at "I don't know" until you get the data necessary to reach a conclusion through some means other than your personal biases for what you *want* the answer to be.

Fine you don't know. No faith required. I do know and do embrace my faith.