Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 219
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,724
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Scientists disagree with what? Time having a beginning?

    Hence? Really..?
    They disagree that matter can be created

    They disagree that God is the only explanation of the universe

    They disagree that time must have a beginning.

    Pretty much everything youíre saying to be honest

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    They disagree that matter can be created

    They disagree that God is the only explanation of the universe

    They disagree that time must have a beginning.

    Pretty much everything youíre saying to be honest
    I also disagree that matter can be created. Wtf valade?

    Why would I care what a scientist opinion on god is? Do you care what a preacher's opinion on evolution is?

    I'd love to hear any coherent hypothesis on an infinite past time line. I've got my own holes I've poked in my argument, but I'm curious what yours are..

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,724
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    I also disagree that matter can be created. Wtf valade?

    Why would I care what a scientist opinion on god is? Do you care what a preacher's opinion on evolution is?

    I'd love to hear any coherent hypothesis on an infinite past time line. I've got my own holes I've poked in my argument, but I'm curious what yours are...
    So youíre saying you believe that matter cannot be created, but also that God created matter. Wtf nasty...

    You canít claim to have any basis in science for your beliefs on God and then say you donít care about a scientists opinion on God. Either there is a scientific foundation for your argument in which case you are about a scientists opinion, or there is not.

    As for the last part, even you admit your hypothesis has holes lol. Do your holes mean you believe itís possible that the universe may not have been created by God?

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So youíre saying you believe that matter cannot be created, but also that God created matter. Wtf nasty...

    You canít claim to have any basis in science for your beliefs on God and then say you donít care about a scientists opinion on God. Either there is a scientific foundation for your argument in which case you are about a scientists opinion, or there is not.

    As for the last part, even you admit your hypothesis has holes lol. Do your holes mean you believe itís possible that the universe may not have been created by God?
    I'm saying matter cannot be created by anything bound by natural law, so if it came to be it could only have been at the hands of something beyond natural law. W. T. F. Valade.

    My argument is beyond the realm of science, science can only positively prove a hypothesis and god can only be proven negatively. My argument is a negative argument. That doesnt mean I cant apply science to it, but it does mean that science is limited in its relation to my argument.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    39,724
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    I'm saying matter cannot be created by anything bound by natural law, so if it came to be it could only have been at the hands of something beyond natural law. W. T. F. Valade.

    My argument is beyond the realm of science, science can only positively prove a hypothesis and god can only be proven negatively. My argument is a negative argument. That doesnt mean I cant apply science to it, but it does mean that science is limited in its relation to my argument.
    So you're saying matter can't be created but it actually can because God is not bound by that rule. W. T. F. Nasty

    If God created the matter, then matter can be created. The first law of thermodynamics isn't that matter can't be created by anything in the natural world, it's matter cannot be created period. You are saying both that matter cannot be created and that it can. And you have the audacity to use WTF on me lol

    OK, then if science can be applied to your hypothesis you cannot dismiss a scientists thoughts on your hypothesis, certainly not on the scientific aspect of it. You are saying that science both has a part in your argument and that it doesn't.

    I think I see the confusion now. When you say black and white, what you really mean is doublespeak.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So you're saying matter can't be created but it actually can because God is not bound by that rule. W. T. F. Nasty

    If God created the matter, then matter can be created. The first law of thermodynamics isn't that matter can't be created by anything in the natural world, it's matter cannot be created period. You are saying both that matter cannot be created and that it can. And you have the audacity to use WTF on me lol

    OK, then if science can be applied to your hypothesis you cannot dismiss a scientists thoughts on your hypothesis, certainly not on the scientific aspect of it. You are saying that science both has a part in your argument and that it doesn't.

    I think I see the confusion now. When you say black and white, what you really mean is doublespeak.
    Exactly!! Wtf?!? This is what the entire concept of god is. Not bound by nature.

    Yes, you're half way there, you gotta complete it.

    I'm saying science has a part in my argument but my argument is not entirely within only the realm of science. A lot of it is just a philosophical idea, not a scientifically measured and controlled experiment.

    There's no doublespeak. If you believe so then you're not understanding my argument.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    46,846
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    Read your post again, it answers your question.
    Iíve read it 5 times. Make your point using a complete sentence.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    If only theScience(tm) folks would.
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    The best way to know anything is via the scientific method.
    There, hope that helps.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    9,072
    I take it theScience(tm) is one of those chicken little organizations.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    I take it theScience(tm) is one of those chicken little organizations.
    Not a clue what that means.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  11. #131
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58,427
    Add that to the list then.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    46,846
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    There, hope that helps.
    It doesn't.

    Make your point with a complete sentence.
    "Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears Ė but they seem kinda sensible...."

  13. #133
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    3,022
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    It doesn't.

    Make your point with a complete sentence.
    This topic with you is tedious at best. I'm done with it. Either you get it or your don't.

    If only theScience(tm) folks would use the scientific method.
    My Ignore List: bklynny67, nastynice, OhSoSlick, spliff(TONE), zmaster52

  14. #134
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    58,427
    We see and acknowledge your white flag.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    46,846
    Quote Originally Posted by brett05 View Post
    This topic with you is tedious at best. I'm done with it. Either you get it or your don't.

    If only theScience(tm) folks would use the scientific method.
    of course "theScience(tm) folks" use the scientific method. To your point, there's certainly bad and uncredible sccience out there that we need to be skeptical of. But that's a separate discussion. It doesn't change the fact that the best way -- which, again, to your point, is far from perfect -- to know anything is to use the scientific method.
    "Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears Ė but they seem kinda sensible...."

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •