Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Gravity in the same essence - is not 100% understood - but we are able to manipulate it ,and yes we do know basically , how it works - or at least about 90% and are able to engineer around it.
Gravity in the same essence - is not 100% understood - but we are able to manipulate it ,and yes we do know basically , how it works - or at least about 90% and are able to engineer around it.
You're confusing cause and effect. We can readily see and measure the effects of gravity, that is how engineers design planes and everything else. We can NOT manipulate it, no one can turn it on or off or adjust its force.
We can't see gravity, only measure its effect on our world. Evolution is similar in that we can't easily see it directly but we can see the effects it has on the fossil record and the biology of living organisms.
We can NOT manipulate it, no one can turn it on or off or adjust its force.
????.....does "everything" mean unicorn in your dictionary?.....you are the one claiming anything is possible.....I disagree with you....I do not believe in unicorns.....it IS wrong....everything is not possible, everything is not impossible.....that proves nothing with respect to the existence of a deity.....
So a unicorn is neither possible nor impossible?
[
no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....
Ok. I agree with you. But you also said this:
"And I know to an absolute certainty that I or no one can prove that God does exist.
Because that is a belief.
Atheists do not believe in God and religious people do believe in God.
That is the difference between beliefs and science. "
NYCarbineer has said that the "not God" position is the more rational, which you agree is a belief. Does that mean NYCarbineer is not an Atheist?
The only rational position to hold is to be agnostic, as no proof exists for god being real, and no proof exists for god not being possible.
Agnosticism simply accepts that we don't know, it does not preclude belief one way or the other. But I do concur the only truly rational position is neutrality.
However, I would offer that this is an unattainable ideal. It sounds good, but fails to take into account that we are talking about people. I seriously doubt it is possible to not hold beliefs on one side of the issue or the other. In every case where I have met someone who claimed to hold no such beliefs it took only a few minutes to determine they were brimming over with beliefs.
To claim that Atheism is not religious by nature is absurd. It is entirely religious. It makes absolutely no sense outside of a religious context. It is a pure belief system. The problem modern Atheists are having is they are trapped in their own dogma. They can't simply say they believe there is no God (a perfectly acceptable conclusion) because it has been written that they have no such beliefs. So they ignore the obvious in favor of the dogma. Rather than presenting objective evidence (of which they have none) we hear the same tired clichés and unsupported claims of intellectual superiority.
We all believe what we believe. I'm not sure we actually have power over that to any significant extent. The trick is to understand when we are engaged in belief and differentiate between it and knowledge. Atheists have no more capacity to do that than Theists. They are no more rational than Theists. They are no less inclined to proselytizing than Theists.
Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.
To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,
I don't think you can call me irrational.
However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,
are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?
Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?
Exactly as both are beliefs only.
no by my standard, a person who claims that an act is irrational and then does it, is irrational......I base that on what you accuse atheists of - irrationality. You set the standard of what constitutes irrationality, and by your standard, a firm believer in unobservable supernatural beings is irrational.
of course they don't have to.....they choose to.....and once they choose to they are atheists instead of agnostics.....
do you claim to have proof that unicorns do not exist?.......that would make you irrational.....I don't believe that unicorns exist. I will continue to not believe in them until someone shows me one. Why does that make me irrational?
Atheism is not a belief system. As the old saying goes, to call atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.
To call atheists irrational because they don't believe in the existence of a God is like calling Jews irrational for not believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
I've never a human fly like a bird - unassisted - just by flapping his arms. If I conclude from that that humans cannot fly like birds, that their arms are not capable of functioning like bird's wings,
I don't think you can call me irrational.
However, if you tell me that humans can fly like birds, but that we just haven't figured out what the trick to it is, or somesuch,
are you thinking rationally? Which of us with our respective conclusions is more rational?
????.....does "everything" mean unicorn in your dictionary?.....you are the one claiming anything is possible.....I disagree with you....I do not believe in unicorns.....So a unicorn is neither possible nor impossible?
I said that people who believe in an omnipotent God believe everything is possible.
If you don't believe in unicorns then you're like the atheist who doesn't believe in God, i.e., according to you,
irrational.
[
no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....
What do you think the definition of rationality is that makes the above statement false?
Do you consider the conclusion there is a god and the conclusion there is not a god to be equally rational?
Exactly as both are beliefs only.
Hardly. There is a very big difference between believing in something for which there is no evidence, and not believing in something for which there is no evidence.
Back to what I mentioned. Is it equally rational to believe that man cannot fly like a bird and to believe that man can fly like a bird?
My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. Creation is the obvious option.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)
So for proof you quote a book that has no basis in fact? After saying that science is crap?
My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. Creation is the obvious option.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)
So for proof you quote a book that has no basis in fact? After saying that science is crap?
You reject the Bible based on an assumption that the Bible is a myth. You are only lying to yourself.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
(2 Peter 3:5)
We are here, afterall.
I agree.
No, that is an assumption. This assumption is based on the assumption that the fossils in the ground are old and the fossils are said to be old because the rock in which they are found are old.
There sure is a diversity of life forms out there isn't there. There are a lot of different styles, sizes, shapes and brands of automobiles too. All of those had a designer.
Once you've rejected macro evolution, what are you left with as the better theory?
My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. Creation is the obvious option.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)
Okay so you're engaging in some sort of anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-intellectual, anti-reason nihilism that simply rejects the principle that human beings have any ability to draw logical conclusions from the observable reality around them.
That's madness. Literally.
I agree.
No, that is an assumption. This assumption is based on the assumption that the fossils in the ground are old and the fossils are said to be old because the rock in which they are found are old.
There sure is a diversity of life forms out there isn't there. There are a lot of different styles, sizes, shapes and brands of automobiles too. All of those had a designer.
My suggestion is don't accept macro-evolution in the first place. Creation is the obvious option.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)
Okay so you're engaging in some sort of anti-science, anti-evidence, anti-intellectual, anti-reason nihilism that simply rejects the principle that human beings have any ability to draw logical conclusions from the observable reality around them.
That's madness. Literally.
I never said I rejected science. That is your presupposition. I like science but despise pseudo-science. I don't like all those fake drawings, fairy tales, and anthropological hoaxes in attempt to make people think that there is actually some science to evolutionism. I just don't have the faith you do to believe in evolutionism.
According to evolution, you must believe that you came from a rock and that your brain is nothing more than a sack of chemicals. Therefore if macro-evolution were true (which it is not), you would not be able to trust your conclusions.
If you were a creature that was intelligently designed by a Creator with the purpose then you would be able to live, breath, eat, feel, touch smell, have emotions, design, think, observe, create, and process logical computations. Let's see, is that the case??? Yep, it sure is. Another piece of evidence in favor of the Creationist view point.
Okay, your conclusions don't line up with the rest of logical thinking humanity which believes in Creation, but that is because you willfully reject reality as Peter says in 2 Peter 3:5 and Paul states in Romans 1:20-21. Once again you serve as yet another empirical data point proving the pinpoint accuracy of the Bible if that is what you seek.
So for proof you quote a book that has no basis in fact? After saying that science is crap?
You reject the Bible based on an assumption that the Bible is a myth. You are only lying to yourself.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
(2 Peter 3:5)
Prove to me that the bible isn't just myths, but without simply quoting it.
Exactly as both are beliefs only.
Hardly. There is a very big difference between believing in something for which there is no evidence, and not believing in something for which there is no evidence.
Back to what I mentioned. Is it equally rational to believe that man cannot fly like a bird and to believe that man can fly like a bird?
I can show you a human being. I can give all of his measurements and you can use that objective evidence to arrive at valid conclusions as to his ability to flap his arms and fly. Show me your evidence about God.
If you define an Atheist as someone who lacks beliefs about God, then you are not an Atheist.
You reject the Bible based on an assumption that the Bible is a myth. You are only lying to yourself.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
(2 Peter 3:5)
Prove to me that the bible isn't just myths, but without simply quoting it.
No one has proved to you that you evolved from a banana or a rock, yet you believe in evolutionism. You just simply believe in evolutionism because you want to. It gives you a convenient excuse to continue living a sinful lifestyle. In fact, you and millions of other humans are performing a validation of the Bible each day.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
(Romans 1:20)
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(Romans 1:25)
You see, in science, you have a hypothesis which provides your statement of what you think is true. From that you test that hypothesis to see if it is indeed true or not. Therefore, one must quote the Bible, because the Bible provides the framework for the hypothesis.
Prophetically, the Bible has met every prophecy it has made with pinpoint accuracy.
Historically, the Bible is the most scrutinized book in history and yet it continues to prove itself correct time and time again. Why do you think the Muslims stopped the Jews from archeological digs around the temple mount.
Scientifically, the Bible states that there are paths to the sea (Psalm 8) and sure enough this is true. The Bible also states that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11). Up until ~120 years ago, the practice of "blood letting" was considered "science" and as a result, many people died. The Bible states in Leviticus 15:13 "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean." It was not until years after the death of Ignaz Semmelweis that the medical world would accept the concept set forth by the Bible. Sadly, Mr. Ignaz Semmelweis was committed to an insane asylum after trying so hard to prove to the "scientific community" of proper hand washing procedures. Despite the overwhelming evidence, the doctors refused to accept his recommended practices which were found to cut the death rate from 30% to 1%. Got to love the "scientific community" which is far from open minded. Jonah 2:6 speaks of mountains on the ocean's floor yet it was not until recently that "modern science" discovered this to be true. In Genesis 17:12, Moses conveys God's instruction for every man child to be circumcised at eight days old. According to medical science, the eight day is the only day in a humans life that the prothrombin is above 100%. Moses certainly didn't learn this from the secular Egyptian "scientists".
I could go on and on, but it is not proof that you need. The "scientists" in Semmelweis' day had plenty of proof. They just were "offended" at the truth and found it highly inconvenient at the cost of tremendous human life. What you need is a change of heart.
But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
(John 20:24-29)
[
no....I didn't set the standard for atheists.....they did.....they say that believing something which cannot be proven is irrational.....
What do you think the definition of rationality is that makes the above statement false?
/boggle.....please read the post you have quoted for the answer to your question.....
Hardly. There is a very big difference between believing in something for which there is no evidence, and not believing in something for which there is no evidence.
Back to what I mentioned. Is it equally rational to believe that man cannot fly like a bird and to believe that man can fly like a bird?
I can show you a human being. I can give all of his measurements and you can use that objective evidence to arrive at valid conclusions as to his ability to flap his arms and fly. Show me your evidence about God.
If you define an Atheist as someone who lacks beliefs about God, then you are not an Atheist.
As some atheist put it, it's not for theists to define what atheists are.
Why atheists are so reviled for not believing in God
