NationStates

New Heliopolis wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:
I asked for a scientific reason why "God" is a better explanation than science and all I got was this crummy multiverse.

*sigh*

You know...

I said "speculative and incomplete" for a reason too.

Because it is speculative and incomplete.

Just like every damn other piece of evidence, theory and what-the-crap else you can bring before me.

Go on, argue a theory, and I will shoot it down.

No. I asked you why "God" is a better explanation than science. So far you haven't shown me anything.

[quote="Furious Grandmothers";p="6986397"]If your ideas don't violate the laws of physics, then they would work just as well in a Godless universe. Or possibly, multiverse seeing as you like to bring that up. So what was your point in mentioning physical law violation?[quote]

Someone else claimed my ideas did.




Of course, I have had freaking enough of people pulling a subjectivity argument. Really. It shows they don't get it.


Unlike how much else?

It could be done, which is all that can be said about pretty much anything.

I had this other idea that's a bit more blatantly in proof of something going on...what's less presumptuous than bringing things like Dark Matter into the equation, or presuming anything is true?

(If your full quotes don't show, I apologize...the system is being screwy)

Farnhamia wrote:No. I asked you why "God" is a better explanation than science. So far you haven't shown me anything.

I have this other idea...

I warn you though, if there are kinks to be worked out, don't go all bile-filled on me,

The question I posed about presumptuousness was rhetorical.

The more important question: Does God believe in you? o.O

Of course I believe in God. The Bible says it, therefore God exists, because the Bible is 100% true.

New Heliopolis wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:No. I asked you why "God" is a better explanation than science. So far you haven't shown me anything.

I have this other idea...

I warn you though, if there are kinks to be worked out, don't go all bile-filled on me,

The question I posed about presumptuousness was rhetorical.

Trust me, I'm not "bile-filled." Disappointed that you have nothing, but not bilious.

United Dependencies wrote:The more important question: Does God believe in you? o.O

Probably not.

Farnhamia wrote:

New Heliopolis wrote:

I have this other idea...

I warn you though, if there are kinks to be worked out, don't go all bile-filled on me,

The question I posed about presumptuousness was rhetorical.

Trust me, I'm not "bile-filled." Disappointed that you have nothing, but not bilious.

The only thing that's less presumptuous than affirming anything is denying something.

The expansion rate of the universe is far beyond what, well, it should be, and perhaps this isn't due to the existence of anything but the lack of applicability of Conservation of Energy.

Which means, basically, there are parts of the universe that are in blatant violation of the local physics, but are definitely there, and via Occam's are proven in.

If those places in violation can interact with us, then, that at least is a step in the right direction.

Not a creator, necessarily, but certainly other aspects of religion...

New Heliopolis wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Trust me, I'm not "bile-filled." Disappointed that you have nothing, but not bilious.

The only thing that's less presumptuous than affirming anything is denying something.

The expansion rate of the universe is far beyond what, well, it should be, and perhaps this isn't due to the existence of anything but the lack of applicability of Conservation of Energy.

Which means, basically, there are parts of the universe that are in blatant violation of the local physics, but are definitely there, and via Occam's are proven in.

If those places in violation can interact with us, then, that at least is a step in the right direction.

Not a creator, necessarily, but certainly other aspects of religion...

What aspects?

Farnhamia wrote:What aspects?

The existence of a "supernatural". The ability of a "supernatural to have an effect on our world--we can see it on the fringes, we can find evidence enough of it to presume something about the universe based on something of it...

I'm explaining it a bit badly, but...

Deus in Machina wrote:

United Dependencies wrote:The more important question: Does God believe in you? o.O

Probably not.

Don't be silly, of course He does. He loves you and believes in you, but is disappointed. He wants you to stop wearing immodest clothing, stop acting immorally around those of the opposite sex, stop listening to vapid TV shows and music that feed you nothing but lies. Come to Jesus, Deus.

New Heliopolis wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:What aspects?

The existence of a "supernatural". The ability of a "supernatural to have an effect on our world--we can see it on the fringes, we can find evidence enough of it to presume something about the universe based on something of it...

I'm explaining it a bit badly, but...

Yes, you are. Let's simplify it some more.

Why should I believe in God? And which God should I believe in, just to be as clear as we can.

I believe in God.

Anglynova wrote:I believe in God.

Why?

Farnhamia wrote:

Anglynova wrote:I believe in God.

Why?

Because he (or she) has read the Bible and knows it to be true. What did you think?

Smuggar wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Why?

Because he (or she) has read the Bible and knows it to be true. What did you think?

Source?

This explains my stance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqeC3BPYTmE

Smuggar wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Why?

Because he (or she) has read the Bible and knows believes it to be true. What did you think?

Fixed.

Farnhamia wrote:

Anglynova wrote:I believe in God.

Why?

I do not believe in God based on any empirical evidence. I have faith in one God that has created the universe and essentially guides its progress. I base this belief on a gut feeling that it could be true and that it feels right. I realize there has been no evidence of God to date. I believe that God has guided humanity through several spiritual teachers and has given Earth the statistical, inherent value through life.

Most importantly, I would rather believe in a God than not. Many are the opposite of this, and that is fine.

EDIT: Also, I am not a Christian. If forced to define myself, I would define myself as a Baha'i who is still seeking.

Anglynova wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Why?

I do not believe in God based on any empirical evidence. I have faith in one God that has created the universe and essentially guides its progress. I base this belief on a gut feeling that it could be true and that it feels right. I realize there has been no evidence of God to date. I believe that God has guided humanity through several spiritual teachers and has given Earth the statistical, inherent value through life.

Most importantly, I would rather believe in a God than not. Many are the opposite of this, and that is fine.

EDIT: Also, I am not a Christian. If forced to define myself, I would define myself as a Baha'i who is still seeking.

Alright, reasonable enough. I'm just curious when people post one-liners, you know.

No, I don't. God is an undefined concept, how can I believe in it? How is this even a meaningful question to ask?

Although I find it funny that the poll only allows for the Abrahamic God, atheism and joke options with everything else being "other".

Smuggar wrote:

Deus in Machina wrote:Probably not.

Don't be silly, of course He does. He loves you and believes in you, but is disappointed. He wants you to stop wearing immodest clothing, stop acting immorally around those of the opposite sex, stop listening to vapid TV shows and music that feed you nothing but lies. Come to Jesus, Deus.

Haha. What?

Smuggar wrote:Of course I believe in God. The Bible says it, therefore God exists, because the Bible is 100% true.

Bats aren't birds.

Rabbits don't chew cud.

The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is not exactly 3.

New Heliopolis wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Trust me, I'm not "bile-filled." Disappointed that you have nothing, but not bilious.

The only thing that's less presumptuous than affirming anything is denying something.

The expansion rate of the universe is far beyond what, well, it should be, and perhaps this isn't due to the existence of anything but the lack of applicability of Conservation of Energy.

Which means, basically, there are parts of the universe that are in blatant violation of the local physics, but are definitely there, and via Occam's are proven in.

If those places in violation can interact with us, then, that at least is a step in the right direction.

Not a creator, necessarily, but certainly other aspects of religion...

Without any evidential support, that "perhaps" will stay as it is.

Also, you saying that there is a particular expansion rate of the universe that it SHOULD be at implies what? Why did you use the word "should"?

Dakini wrote:

Smuggar wrote:Of course I believe in God. The Bible says it, therefore God exists, because the Bible is 100% true.

Bats aren't birds.

Rabbits don't chew cud.

The circumference of a circle divided by its diameter is not exactly 3.

These are just lies perpetuated by liberal 'scientists' to attempt to discredit the Holy Word of God.