For my Christians Friends

[smilingsynic]

Quote from volente_00:

People are pronounced dead at hospitals all the time. Then they defy natural laws and are brought back to life. Sometimes through science and sometimes through other channels when science has already given up.

If people were pronounced dead and then end up alive, they were not really dead in the first place. Clearly, the medical personnel were in error by pronouncing the person as dead. Some doctor told my mother that there was almost no chance that I would be born alive. Yes, doctors make mistakes all of the time. They're human, not divine.

Now, if the person were pronounced dead by many persons, and then lay there dead for a day or two, decomposing, and THEN came back to life, now THAT would be impressive.

 

[volente_00]

TEACHER: Tommy do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. He doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions. The teacher agreed and the little girl questioned the boy.

LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss (getting tired of the questions this time).
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see the teacher's mind?
TOMMY: No.
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she must not have one!

 

[volente_00]

Quote from smilingsynic:

If people were pronounced dead and then end up alive, they were not really dead in the first place. Clearly, the medical personnel were in error by pronouncing the person as dead. Some doctor told my mother that there was almost no chance that I would be born alive. Yes, doctors make mistakes all of the time. They're human, not divine.

Now, if the person were pronounced dead by many persons, and then lay there dead for a day or two, decomposing, and THEN came back to life, now THAT would be impressive.

When a body has no pulse and no brain activity and it's natural processes are being continued off of a mechanical machine then it is medically defined as dead. When one comes out of such condition, how do you explain how bloodflow and brain activitiy just fired up out of the blue without mechanical assistance ?

So what you are saying is that those who are trained by science make mistakes all the time ?

 

[volente_00]

a simple test


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheiststest.html

 

[DerekD]

Quote from volente_00:

Actually you are testing whether there is a correlation between prayer and water. Interesting how you rule out rain. Why can't a higher power send the water naturally ? I personally don't know of anyone who actually prays for supernatural things to happen. Do you ? I believe that prayer has to be realistic to work. One can't pray to get turned into a monkey and then wonder why his prayer was not answered.

You obviously never read the bible or Qu'ran. It's a twist of the Gideon story and the "fleece test" that Gideon used to validate God's word.

People pray for healing don't they? How realistic is that? What about praying for an amputated limb to grow back? They pray for all sorts of things everyday. They pray for peace and safety. For wealth, for love, for help with tests they didn't study for, etc. The list is extremely long.

Anyway, I'll wait until you define or refine your personal religion a bit more. You know, hammer down the details. Otherwise, you get the luxury of moving the line in the sand at will in order to attempt to validate your arguments.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from DerekD:

I think you have it all backwards. I'm referring to the last part in particular. Scientists knew nuclear reactions existed. They just weren't sure that we could harness the energy. There is a difference between that and what you are positing. They OBSERVED nuclear reactions. They figured what would be required in order to replicate it. They tested it until successful. They learn about what's possible THROUGH observation.

Scientific advancement is NOT made by a belief in what's possible. But rather made by observation and stumbling upon something while observing another.

Take the speed of light for instance. It was observed and later tested that light (photons) travels at a certain speed. Electrons also travel at that speed. What might be possible is having a ship travel near that speed given the other things we observed about the relationship between input energy and output power. You cannot meet 100% efficiency in this universe, only approach it.

See what I mean?

You prove my point.


Science was skeptical of nuclear energy. Had they not had faith in that it was a possibility, then they would have never arrived at the empirical evidence that we have today. If they had no belief in the possibility then why would they continue to test for it's possibility ?


Take the atom for example, it was not proven to exist for 1000's of years yet it all started as a scientific thought that took a long time to actually achieve physical evidence. Had science not had faith they would eventually be able to prove it's existed, it would have never materialized.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from DerekD:

You obviously never read the bible or Qu'ran. It's a twist of the Gideon story and the "fleece test" that Gideon used to validate God's word.

People pray for healing don't they? How realistic is that? What about praying for an amputated limb to grow back? They pray for all sorts of things everyday. They pray for peace and safety. For wealth, for love, for help with tests they didn't study for, etc. The list is extremely long.

Anyway, I'll wait until you define or refine your personal religion a bit more. You know, hammer down the details. Otherwise, you get the luxury of moving the line in the sand at will in order to attempt to validate your arguments.

Those are all things that can happen naturally even if you don't pray. I have never heard of anyone praying to get their leg back. You must know some unrealistic nutcases. Peace, safety, love, health, how are those equivalent to making water appear out of no where without use of the hydrologic cycle ?

 

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:

Quote from stu:
I stated...
"I can propose a very clear and simple test, based on fact and the scientific method which would convince enough to constitute proof. "



Clarify your gibberish. What does your simple test consist of ?

You want me to explain a simple test, but you can't even understand my simple statement as being anything but gibberish.
When you can , let me know.

Quote from volente_00:

How can one scientifically test for something that is undefined ?

Perhaps your first question should be, why would you even want to ?

Quote from volente_00:

Better yet, show us how one can use the scientific method to prove that love exists

You're drifting again. Maybe a recap.

Quote from volente_00:

What would be necessary for it [God] to do to prove it is what it says ?

I stated...
"I can propose a very clear and simple test, based on fact and the scientific method which would convince enough to constitute proof. "

Quote from volente_00:

In your own closed little mind, nothing could convince you because you have placed belief in the atheism religion for so long that there is no way in hell you would admit you were wrong even with proof.

At that stage an attempt was made to direct your attention to the fact that you have inadvertently and unthinkingly in my view, opened up what your problem is. Not mine.
Even were you to meet up with this God of yours in life or after death in whatever weird arrangement or other religion has it,, there would be no way for you to understand It was your God. "there is no way in hell you would [or could] admit you were wrong even with proof"

At leat I (everyone) have a test ..."which would convince enough to constitute proof. "
Being so wrapped up your own religious ass , you clearly do not.

 

[stu]

Quote from TraderZones:

Inasmuch as wikipedia can be trusted:
Max Planck was a devoted and persistent adherent of Christianity from early life to death, but he was very tolerant towards alternate views and religions, and so was discontented with the church organizations' demands for unquestioning belief.

[.......]

It is likely that Planck would have walked away from the Nobel, and from Physics rather than give up his faith.


This is something you could not possibly understand.

Then it is more likely Max Planck would have walked away from his God and from faith, rather than give up his science.

This is something you could not possibly begin to understand.

 

[stu]

Quote from neophyte321:

I equated god with perfection. I was informed perfection does not exist. I was also informed that "perfection" was a relative term.

I agreed, I offered that there are ideas of perfecton that literally everyone agrees on, one being a perfect circle. And not unlike god, man's best attempt to define a perfect circle relies on an irrational number.

Thanks for the explanation.
The assumed to be perfect circle is found to be relying on an irrational number as you say.

You agreed perfection is a relative term.
Then you say - perfect circle - to suggest perfection is not a relative term.
Which is it?

Why would that relative term and that irrational number not suggest to you the circle is indeed not perfect, and were one to exist, it might at least measure up differently than so called perfect circles actually do?

Surely on examination, one might observe God appears to equate with imperfection