Belief in a God, the existence of a higher power, and the concept of an afterlife. Science or Religion?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sure, I can speculate that God is actually a rainbow unicorn in the 7th dimension. But it's useless gibberish.



Which is useless gibberish. Any toddler can claim to have an imaginary pet dragon that nobody else can see. And they often do.

Does it shit christian ice cream or yogurt?




Sweet Jesus! I'm a believer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you really think you have the entire universe in your realm of understanding, but my guest

Goofy non sequitur

Put your ideas to the test. Where did the energy input of your magical energy go? Does your magical energy not have to follow the laws of conservation?

The more you talk about the idea, the more useless it becomes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Does it shit christian ice cream or yogurt?




Sweet Jesus! I'm a believer.

That is not for an infidel like you to know. Sorry.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If you really think you have the entire universe in your realm of understanding, but my guest. It explains a great deal.

Just like Elvis on Pluto.....if you haven't been there, you can't absolutely claim he does not live there.

You mean just like Elvis and Bluto?

 

[frigidweirdo]

God? Where and who or what is that?

Can't wait for the Religious Scientist to perform a lab experiment that produces this god.

It's not really the point. The point is that the philosophical rational for there having to be a God doesn't even stand up.

 

[HikerGuy83]

God? Where and who or what is that?

Can't wait for the Religious Scientist to perform a lab experiment that produces this god.

I think the first question has to be answered before the experiment can be run.

And what kind of experiment would you propose ? That should be fun.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Shit!

I mean 'poop!'

We haven't made it into the Rubber Room yet?

Somebody has fell asleep at the wheel.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not really the point. The point is that the philosophical rational for there having to be a God doesn't even stand up.

Right, the premises are all dubious.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think the first question has to be answered before the experiment can be run.

And what kind of experiment would you propose ? That should be fun.

one that can be verified by running it again and getting the same result?

Poof!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God? Where and who or what is that?

Can't wait for the Religious Scientist to perform a lab experiment that produces this god.

Neither can the rest of us. As Dawkins says, whether or not God exists is a scientific question.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's not really the point. The point is that the philosophical rational for there having to be a God doesn't even stand up.

But, but, but Moses said...

 

[Dadoalex]

And the first part is "technology".

That's fairly interchangeable with "science" just like "magic" and "religion" are.

No. Religion requires belief in the absence of proof.
Magic is "proof" that produces disbelief.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. Religion requires belief in the absence of proof.
Magic is "proof" that produces disbelief.

It always strikes me as odd how the faithers will, at one moment, claim to he so proud of their faith...

...then, in the next moment, claim they are producing sound arguments and evidence for the truth of their faith based beliefs. As if they have a moment of clarity and are embarrassed by their faith.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Goofy non sequitur

Put your ideas to the test. Where did the energy input of your magical energy go? Does your magical energy not have to follow the laws of conservation?

The more you talk about the idea, the more useless it becomes.

And this is your typical MO. Let's wonder around until we find questions we can't answer so you can claim your point is valid.

How can I test my idea....we already stated it was a concept.

Whose laws of conservation.

Nuclear energy violates the conservation of mass "law". So, context is important.

I guess that didn't make it into the bible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And this is your typical MO. Let's wonder around until we find questions we can't answer so you can claim your point is valid.

You can't answer ANY questions. That's your entire MO: belief without evidence.

That's YOUR fault, not mine. Stop complaining.

If you don't like it, take your faith out of the science section and head over to the faith safe space, the religion section.

 

[HikerGuy83]

one that can be verified by running it again and getting the same result?

Poof!

Yes, well knock yourself out.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You can't answer ANY questions. That's your entire MO: belief without evidence.

That's YOUR fault, not mine. Stop whining.

I don't need to answer any questions. I didn't post the article (the one that leaves a lot of questions unanswered).

Given that you somehow think you can constrain the conversation but really can't.....that's your problem.

I don't live under any such constraints.

I realize there is a great deal I don't know.

And your use of the word whining is just another of the tactics you employ when someone won't bow to your limited thinking.

There is no absolute evidence and I have never claimed as much. That's why they call it FAITH.

Your sorry response is that if you can't see it, taste it, touch it, hear it or smell it,......it does not exist.

Keep trying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nuclear energy violates the conservation of mass "law".

That law does not exist. Einstein eliminated it. Pay attention!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't need to answer any questions.

Right, that's the luxury of nonsensical belief without evidence.

Rational people and scientists don't have this luxury. It's literally the only thing scientists do: answer questions.

I realize there is a great deal I don't know.

So do scientists. To a man. What they then DONT do is immediately contradict themselves by pretending to know things exist for which they have no evidence. As you have.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It always strikes me as odd how the faithers will, at one moment, claim to he so proud of their faith...

...then, in the next moment, claim they are producing sound arguments and evidence for the truth of their faith based beliefs. As if they have a moment of clarity and are embarrassed by their faith.

Don't know which fathers you are referencing.

What the hell do you mean "Proud of their faith" ? I can't even grasp that concept.

There are no "sound arguments" or evidence of their faith. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

And nobody here is embarrassed by their faith.

If anything is embarrassing, it is that I have to be counted with the idiots on this thread who from their perches out in the wings of the Milky Way somehow claim to know everything there is to know.