15 May 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelSpirituality, yes. A sunset, not so much.
Nevertheless a good teacher should be able to teach spirituality to even a blind person.
If god is real then people will find 'it' sooner or later. (there are so many variables in that last sentence ,that depending on your answer, I may bail out of this altogether)
That's my point here. "There are none so blind as those who would not see."
Describing faith to those who refuse to have faith in anything beyond themselves is futile.
God IS real, and yes, people with open minds will find Him sooner or later. Those who refuse have closed their minds to Him. But hey, that is what Free Will is all about. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
15 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwActually, a theory is about as certain as you can get in science, as an hypothesis can only become a theory once all known facts are in its favour, and none to the contrary (also commonly known as an accepted hypothesis).
If it were proven it wouldn't be a theory.
Tell me what about evolution you don't think has been "proven" yet?
15 May 11
Originally posted by Zenarctic"Actually, a theory is about as certain as you can get in science,.."
Actually, a theory is about as certain as you can get in science, as an hypothesis can only become a theory once all known facts are in its favour, and none to the contrary (also commonly known as an accepted hypothesis).
Tell me what about evolution you don't think has been "proven" yet?
That's the new science. Bogus science. A fact is a fact.
"Tell me what about evolution you don't think has been "proven" yet?"
Evolution.
15 May 11
Originally posted by josephwNo, no, no. You can't use the original assumption (there's a god) as the evidence for your other assumption (things were created this way from the get-go). That's called circular argument, and the reason it's not accepted is because through circular reasoning you can arrive at any conclusion you so desire. Just make up the assumptions that pleases you, and you can convince yourself that you're the flying superman. That is, until someone asks you to fly and do super things, at which point it just gets embarrassing for all of us.
God.
Is that too simple for you? Be careful man, you're talking to a throwback. 😉
15 May 11
Originally posted by ZenarcticGod isn't an assumption. God is a fact.
No, no, no. You can't use the original assumption (there's a god) as the evidence for your other assumption (things were created this way from the get-go). That's called circular argument, and the reason it's not accepted is because through circular reasoning you can arrive at any conclusion you so desire. Just make up the assumptions that pleases you, and ...[text shortened]... sks you to fly and do super things, at which point it just gets embarrassing for all of us.
15 May 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThought transfer between lovers?
Do you believe in Love,Friendship,Beauty of this Universe,Goodness of Honest Work,Fellowship of all beings(human and non-humans),Living life true to oneself and to others,Intuition, Thought transfer between lovers and Parents/Children,Mind,limitations of human Body and Mind ?
Then I would say you believe in God.
Ah ... no. I don't believe in this one.
Of the others, yeah sure, but so what?
You're not going to go on about that old stupidity that these therefore prove gods are you? Please tell me you're not.
The beauty of the universe proves god as much as a hamburger does - which is to say, not at all.
15 May 11
Originally posted by Agerg"It's only a theory! Perhaps the next time you fall over you'll float off into the sky, science can't prove 100% this won't happen!"
I assert no such thing.
Apparently you can't understand even what you say!
You are asserting that nothing is provable. Not even gravity.
15 May 11
Originally posted by josephwJW, I'm not sure how much clearer people can get, but I'll try one more time. Theory is a term that is used in science to describe an explanation for a particular phenomenon.
You also believe in evolution, which is an unproven theory.
I believe in a living, breathing, man named Jesus who was crucified and raised from the dead. It's a fact of history with many proofs.
It's not good that you don't see it.
Theory doesn't mean something is unproven, or untested, or not factual.
But, while we're here talking about facts, you don't believe in a living, breathing man - you believe in accounts of this man, who clearly isn't living and breathing, but exists only in words that suggest he might have been living and breathing 2000 years ago.
The 'many' proofs of his 'resurrection' are a couple of contradictory accounts written by his supporters many years after his death. If that's what you call factual, then evolution is completely sewn up.