Community >> View Post
·
Post By
MysteryMan

Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 3,554
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: A response to Jesusfan.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 at 08:14:47 am CDT (Viewed 389 times)
Reply Subj: Re: A response to Jesusfan.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 at 10:27:29 pm CDT (Viewed 456 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        1) Humanity isn't wicked.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Well...actually we kinda are. It's just a matter of whos calling who wicked. A lot of people who post on here sure call trump wicked. (and not saying he isn't ;P)



    Quote:
    In the context of this discussion, Ancient One is saying humanity is not INHERENTLY wicked, ala original sin, and his proof are infants who lack willful malevolence. He was not saying that there are no wicked humans at all.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        2) If you want to demonstrate that god has forbidden ANYTHING, first you have to demonstrate that god exists.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This one of those things that cannot be proven or disproven by science...at least at this point.



    Quote:
    God's existence doesn't need to be disproven by science. God can be disproven by logic. First and foremost, the burden of proof of existence is on those who make the claim for something's existence, not on everyone else to prove a negative. I can say Nonsense Man and Zip Woman, both of whom I just made up, exist. Is it up to you to scour the entire universe for these two entities and only if you don't find them anywhere across all time periods can you claim that I was wrong or lied? Of course not. You don't assume the existence of Nonsense Man and Zip Woman and any infinite number of other made-up possibilities until evidence disproving them presents itself. You know dogs, spaghetti, and cell phones exist because you've experienced them. You safely assume Nonsense Man and Zip Woman don't exist because you've never experienced them in any way and the nature of the existence doesn't make sense to you.


I actually think Science should not try to prove or disprove God, because it cant. As for taking things on faith...one could argue we take science on faith. Because have you ever actually felt a tachyon particle? Nope you have not. Theory predicts them, because the mathematics that we use and know works for "some" things predicts/uses this in some models. But truthfully accepting this is in some ways faith. True its faith in something that has been proven to work...USUALLY. Because as we learn more models change, adapt and get better...sometimes discarding things (like how the amount of dark matter in the universe is a lot lower now that they found brown stars).

Now where science proves superior imo is that this is part of its basic set of principles...that its built on building blocks and needs to question itself and these blocks everytime it learns something new. It is aware of its own inherent weaknesses and tries to correct as best it can....when APPLIED correctly. Some scientists unfortunately so badly want to prove their own beliefs/theories that they forget this.

But is short...science is in some ways just as "faith based" as religion. It's improvement imo however comes from its basic principle of questioning its own assumptions at all times.


    Quote:
    How do the faithful, who have the burden of proof, prove the existence of God? They can't. God just happens to lack any property available to the senses. God can't be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, or heard. If I tell you that Nonsense Man has these exact same properties - he can't be sensed in any way, he is omniscient and omnipotent, and Nonsense Man created the universe and humankind, he would have the exact same characteristics of God. On what logical grounds can you tell me that God exists and Nonsense Man doesn't? None.



    Quote:
    Here are all the different modes of existence: the physical (mass or energy and any associative properties like size, color, etc.), concepts/ideas (categorizations, fiction, mathematics, sentences), actions/events (things that the other two categories do). God only fits one of these modes, that of an idea (fiction). Of course that is not the mode the faithful claim for God, and yet, God fits no other category. What then does it even mean for God to exist?



    Quote:
    Ancient One also already made this very pertinent point against the existence of God here:



    Quote:
    https://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=community-2017081621523401&layout=thread



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        But again, the bible was written by men. They, in their homophobia, wrote verses that were homophobic in the 7th century BCE, and haven't become any less homophobic in the two and a half millennia since.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Ehhh...Agree men have surely messed with it. Not sure just because whats in the books means the writers were homophobes...there is a lot more to whoever they were than just that. That's too easy a label. Those using anything in it to hurt gay people...those are the homophobes.



    Quote:
    Sure, the authors of those particular passages were more than homophobes, but they were also at the least homophobes.


Or they had some other agenda.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software