Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.
Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Moderator: Moderators
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1308
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 864 times
- Been thanked: 1266 times
Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #1
Last edited by Diogenes on Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #51I wish you the best on creating a forum about leprechauns and Pascal.
You don´t have "evidence" that God does not exist. I do have evidence that He does. You can not do anything about it, it is not of your business. The only thing you can do is listening my evidences so at least you know my reasons; you have not part on what I consider evidence for myself. Sorry.
Anyway, why are you so concerned about what my position is?
You don´t have "evidence" that God does not exist. I do have evidence that He does. You can not do anything about it, it is not of your business. The only thing you can do is listening my evidences so at least you know my reasons; you have not part on what I consider evidence for myself. Sorry.
Anyway, why are you so concerned about what my position is?
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3046
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3276 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #52That's been established.
You haven't established that.
So far, I've only seen the claim that you have evidence, not what that evidence is.
When you commented in a debate forum, were you not expecting debate?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #53"established"???? By whom?
I establish my own beliefs by myself. So do you, I guess.
The world is bigger than you or those "established" things for yourself.
The evidence for the existence of God is that I exist, and that's it.
I establish my own beliefs by myself. So do you, I guess.
The world is bigger than you or those "established" things for yourself.
The evidence for the existence of God is that I exist, and that's it.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #54I know claims can be invigorating to the claimant, but they don't go anywhere in convincing others. So how about some evidence or at least a good argument?
.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3046
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3276 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #55Is this intended to support the claim that your arguments are scientific?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #56For me to exist, God is a must.
Life come from life; order comes from an organizer. There is no chaos that can generate life or beauty by itself.
My awareness of myself and of the outside cannot be casual. Life on this planet is too special to have arisen by chance. There is no real probability that this Universe arose by itself and by chance, without someone directing the process.
It is simple logic, but it seems to be very hard to understand for atheists. How can I help you to be more reasonable? Who needs science to understand that?
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #57Just to be clear here, unless a statement embraces one of the three laws of logical thought, (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle, and (3) the principle of identity, mere statements (claims in this case) don't rise to the level of logic, simple or otherwise. You claim thatEloi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 2:31 pmFor me to exist, God is a must.
Life come from life; order comes from an organizer. There is no chaos that can generate life or beauty by itself.
My awareness of myself and of the outside cannot be casual. Life on this planet is too special to have arisen by chance. There is no real probability that this Universe arose by itself and by chance, without someone directing the process.
It is simple logic, but it seems to be very hard to understand for atheists. How can I help you to be more reasonable? Who needs science to understand that?
A. Life comes from life;
B. Order comes from an organizer.
C. There is no chaos that can generate life by itself.
D. There is no chaos that can generate beauty by itself.
B. Order comes from an organizer.
C. There is no chaos that can generate life by itself.
D. There is no chaos that can generate beauty by itself.
This is very nice, but without evidence or an argument to back them up they're nothing but your opinions. Opinions that carry no more weight than my opinions about life, order, and chaos. And the same can be said about your statements concerning your awareness of yourself, the outside, and life on this planet. Mere opinions as they stand, lacking any power whatsoever to convince.
So, PLEASE, give us evidence of some sort, or a decent argument to work with to show why they're true.
.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #59I'm sure you don't, but that's okay. Perhaps in the years to come you'll be able to distinguish the two. Until then, hang in there and listen to your local atheists. They can usually get a person through the rough spots in life.
.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #60[Replying to Eloi in post #56]
Who organizes showflakes and their intricate shapes? And who has ever said that "chaos" generated life? Chemical reactions are not random or chaotic. They proceed according to how bonds form to create molecules and structures from atoms, and this is influenced by a host of environmental inputs including temperature, pressure, light, etc. There is no reason to believe that the first living populations didn't arise from purely natural phenomena. Personal incredulity does not change this.Life come from life; order comes from an organizer. There is no chaos that can generate life or beauty by itself.
But life could have arose from the nonrandom actions of chemistry and physics. Pure chance is not a mechanism that is on the table for how life began as far as I know. And what do you mean by "special"? We don't know the mechanism for how the universe came into existence, just like we don't yet know the mechanism for how life arose from nonliving substances. So you cannot claim that neither are possible without some god being directing the process.Life on this planet is too special to have arisen by chance. There is no real probability that this Universe arose by itself and by chance, without someone directing the process.
But it isn't simple logic. It is your personal opinion because you do believe in the existence of a god being and want to attribute things to that entity that you can't fathom could happen naturally without that being's actions. Standard religious, nonscientific viewpoint, but it certainly isn't simple logic.It is simple logic, but it seems to be very hard to understand for atheists. How can I help you to be more reasonable? Who needs science to understand that?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain