Does God Exist?

[Dragomere]

Science can prove most occurrences in religious texts, like the bible.

...
What in the actual fuck?

Science can prove must of what was recorded in the Bible.

[The Steel Magnolia]

With certainty? With reasonable, accurate certainty?

I'm doubtful. Now, we have these people called "therapists" and "social workers", and by and large, CBT (i.e. the only type that fucking works) doesn't involve hooking up diodes to your head to determine what pesky electrodes are bugging you today.

I like determinism as much as the next guy, but genes as a magic 8-ball sounds stupid to me.

Let alone the fact that we can only see trends and probabilities, but also that no one lives in a fucking vacuum.

Precisely. Which is why this whole "biological computer" claim is annoying.

It's not that it's wrong. It's that it's meaningless.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

...
What in the actual fuck?

Science can prove must of what was recorded in the Bible.

Exodus is a pile of bullshit.

Come at me bro.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Reading that sentence made me physically sick. Religion is inherently unscientific as it is dogmatic and unchanging in the face of new evidence. It's the farthest thing from science.

Science can prove most occurrences in religious texts, like the bible.

Like Noah's Ark?

[Mavorpen]

However, you did add a rebuttal and I did notice it, but then again it's not like it's not somewhat fun to see you getting slightly annoyed now let's stop this threadjack and get back to the topic at hand, mmmk?

I'm not annoyed in the slightest. Baffled at how such a stupid straw man led to this? Yes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, depending on what you mean by those words.

Again, you're going to have to expand.

This is what I mean. Mavorpen, please, for the fucking love of the science you so love to profess, give us something to work with here.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

Science can prove most occurrences in religious texts, like the bible.

Like Noah's Ark?

Or Noah?

[The Holy Michigan Empire]

While debatable, I am going to make the educated guess that it's mostly political beliefs that wedged you.

I am christian for my own political beliefs and for the companionship of the local church that provided me and my family crucial assistance and friendship.

It's pretty much depending on the church. . .and local culture too. . .. ish.

I'm not against spirituality. So really, you're right, it's my political beliefs that wedged me, so to speak.

You want to believe a God exists, fine, that's your prerogative.

There is no proof of his existence, however, and claiming that there is or that proof is unnecessary for proper belief fosters attitudes of ignorance and complacency, which I am not okay with as they stymie scientific advancement. My problem is not with spirituality, it's with religion.

Understandable. I wound recommend looking up some the history of the catholic church's views of the sciences. Their historical views of the most educated men in europe of their time is pretty rational. The 'religion and science are mortal enemies' is more of a modern ideal then historical.

[Mavorpen]

I like determinism as much as the next guy, but genes as a magic 8-ball sounds stupid to me.

Let alone the fact that we can only see trends and probabilities, but also that no one lives in a fucking vacuum.

Precisely. Which is why this whole "biological computer" claim is annoying.

Exactly who said we are biological computers in this thread?

[Cosmicus]

...
What in the actual fuck?

Science can prove must of what was recorded in the Bible.

Well, for the most part, yes. But what does that have to do with your "religion is a science" stuff?

[Mavorpen]

Again, you're going to have to expand.

This is what I mean. Mavorpen, please, for the fucking love of the science you so love to profess, give us something to work with here.

No.

[Dragomere]

yes, Noah's Ark, the Plagues of Egypt, The crossing of the Reed Sea, ect., all can be proven by science.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Like Noah's Ark?

Or Noah?

That's not really scientific but historical.

Unless you count the fact he lived six centuries.

[Mavorpen]

yes, Noah's Ark, the Plagues of Egypt, The crossing of the Reed Sea, ect., all can be proven by science.

No it can't. Precisely for the simple fact that science doesn't prove anything.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

...
What in the actual fuck?

Science can prove must of what was recorded in the Bible.

That doesn't mean that religion can be scientific. Also, the bible is not the only book out there that has recorded events proven by science. The Popol Vuh of the Inca does too. As well as several Native American legends. Do you see them attempting to turn religion into science?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

yes, Noah's Ark, the Plagues of Egypt, The crossing of the Reed Sea, ect., all can be proven by science.

I knew this thread would come in handy:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=247237

[Shaggai]

Precisely. Which is why this whole "biological computer" claim is annoying.

Exactly who said we are biological computers in this thread?

I didn't, but I will argue it if you want.

[The Steel Magnolia]

This is what I mean. Mavorpen, please, for the fucking love of the science you so love to profess, give us something to work with here.

No.

Our opponent, ladies and gentlemen.

[San Splendido]

yes, Noah's Ark, the Plagues of Egypt, The crossing of the Reed Sea, ect., all can be proven by science.

I would like to see that. Starting with the fact that there is not enough water in the entire system of Earth to cover all of it (including Mount Everest). And at best, you can show that some miracles have possible natural explanations. There is scant to nonexistent proof that they actually happened. Curiously, Egyptian sources seem to be silent on them, for one.

[Conscentia]

yes, Noah's Ark, the Plagues of Egypt, The crossing of the Reed Sea, ect., all can be proven by science.

Science and mathematics disagree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

[Shaggai]

yes, Noah's Ark, the Plagues of Egypt, The crossing of the Reed Sea, ect., all can be proven by science.

I knew this thread would come in handy:

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=247237

The second to last post on that thread is hilarious.

[Dragomere]

Science can prove must of what was recorded in the Bible.

That doesn't mean that religion can be scientific. Also, the bible is not the only book out there that has recorded events proven by science. The Popol Vuh of the Inca does too. As well as several Native American legends. Do you see them attempting to turn religion into science?

One of the few things that can not be proven by science is: the existence of God himself.

[Mavorpen]

No.

Our opponent, ladies and gentlemen.

What about me?

[Nationalist State of Knox]

yes, Noah's Ark, the Plagues of Egypt, The crossing of the Reed Sea, ect., all can be proven by science.

I would like to see that. Starting with the fact that there is not enough water in the entire system of Earth to cover all of it (including Mount Everest). And at best, you can show that some miracles have possible natural explanations. There is scant to nonexistent proof that they actually happened. Curiously, Egyptian sources seem to be silent on them, for one.

And the sources of Egypt's enemies, who would have almost certainly recorded such a catastrophe that happened to their enemy.

[Mavorpen]

That doesn't mean that religion can be scientific. Also, the bible is not the only book out there that has recorded events proven by science. The Popol Vuh of the Inca does too. As well as several Native American legends. Do you see them attempting to turn religion into science?

One of the few things that can not be proven by science is: the existence of God himself.

That's a lie. Again, science doesn't prove anything.