You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Bible inerrant
- Thread starter yip1997
- Start date
Quote from james_bond_3rd:
You need to get some education, dude.
Based on your limited abilities, you need to reconsider where the education is lacking. You talk without knowledge.
A hypothesis is a guess.
Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
Notice? Your definition is far from the definition of a scientific theory. Show up around the lab, and you would be laughed out of the room.
A theory is a hypothesis that scientists have failed to prove false.
Theory:
1) a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. an idea, belief, method, or statement generally accepted as true or worthwhile without proof.
2) a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Notice? Your explanation is not part of the definition.
In science, every hypothesis can be proven false. If you don't know that, then you don't know science. The starting point of science is to assume that everything and anything can be wrong.
Science:
1) a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
2) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Notice? Your "starting point" explanation is not part of the definition.
That is definitely not the starting point of any religion that I know.
You are not just showing your ignorance of science. You are also showing your ignorance of religion.
Your ignorance is painful to witness. You are like a 3 year old with a loaded gun. Why don't you read before shooting off your mouth? Now go; mommy is calling. Now I know why I started ignoring your posts a while ago. You rarely say anything other than the empty opinions of an empty head
Do you think you are making points by being incredibly ignorant and stupid?????????????????????
Seriously, were you home schooled by your parrot?
But don't worry, I remedied the problem by ensuring you are on ET "ignore."
Quote from yip1997:
If Bible is not true, why do I need salvation?
The Bible is an example of a confused mind. Consider all of it's confusing ideas and solutions to be within your own mind.
Salvation is for the mind...for the healing of the confused mind. If you are at all confused, you are still in need of salvation.
Jesus
I am stunned, nay, shocked and dismayed, nay, thunderstruck, that Jesus Himself has committed an unquestionable error in grammar. It is expected of us mortals, but for a deity to make such an simple mistake has shaken my belief to the core.Quote from I am...:
The Bible is an example of a confused mind. Consider all of it's confusing ideas and solutions to be within your own mind.
Salvation is for the mind...for the healing of the confused mind. If you are at all confused, you are still in need of salvation.
Jesus
Quote from rcanfiel:
Its impossible to disprove God in part, because it is necessary to disprove His existence everywhere, which is impossible. It has little to do with people. We are insignificant to His existence or not. In the same way that people think "if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?" Again, sound has nothing to do with observation and everything to do with the creation of sound energy.
You mean according to either what you have conceptualized or the conceptulization of god you have adopted, we are insignificant and need to disprove the existence of that god everywhere?
If the concept of God you adopted is that it is omnipresent, then if you can PROVE it exists in one area, it should hold true everywhere you check. Sort of like the laws of physics.
But again, since you speak confidently about a being which you haven't defined in a testable way, the burden of proof rests squarely on you. As you would expect that the burden of proof rest squarely on me if I go around claiming that faires heal the cuts and bruises of little children and also give them something of value when children lose their teeth as they grow. Now imagine if I went around also saying that since you can't seem to disprove it, you have to allow at least for the possibility of it.
You know, you can always just say, "I believe." But to say God exists with surety without proof is just crazy-talk. See, if you say you believe or even really, really believe, you leave it open-ended and maybe one day you will be proven to be right.
Quote from rcanfiel:
Pasting and copying does not mean you know what you are talking about.
You are confused (if what your copied and pasted definitions ever went through your head). How do you suppose those scientific theories are discovered? Certainly not by looking up in the Bible.
I repeat here for your benefit:
All scientific hypotheses can be proven false.
Science starts by assuming that everything and anything can be questioned and be proven wrong.
If you don't understand these points, ask nicely and someone here might explain them to you. Just don't parade your ignorance here any more.
If we can't disprove fairies then we would have to allow for them as a possibility - just an extremely remote possibility given that we have more credible explanations available.Quote from DerekD:
As you would expect that the burden of proof rest squarely on me if I go around claiming that fairies heal the cuts and bruises of little children and also give them something of value when children lose their teeth as they grow. Now imagine if I went around also saying that since you can't seem to disprove it, you have to allow at least for the possibility of it.
In the God case, though, the alternative explanations are equally fantastical so we have no criterion to help us determine its likelihood.
Quote from DerekD:
You mean according to either what you have conceptualized or the conceptulization of god you have adopted, we are insignificant and need to disprove the existence of that god everywhere?
If the concept of God you adopted is that it is omnipresent, then if you can PROVE it exists in one area, it should hold true everywhere you check. Sort of like the laws of physics.
Not every God is considered "omnipresent" I think. There are >= thousands of Gods in all the world's religions...
"But again, since you speak confidently about a being which you haven't defined in a testable way, the burden of proof rests squarely on you. As you would expect that the burden of proof rest squarely on me if I go around claiming that faires heal the cuts and bruises of little children and also give them something of value when children lose their teeth as they grow. Now imagine if I went around also saying that since you can't seem to disprove it, you have to allow at least for the possibility of it."
that is reasonable.
"You know, you can always just say, "I believe." But to say God exists with surety without proof is just crazy-talk. "
That is a reasonable statement. It is critical when projecting onto others though. It is just as crazy for an atheist to say there must be no God, because they happen not to believe in Him.
Quote from Hansel H:
If we can't disprove fairies then we would have to allow for them as a possibility - just an extremely remote possibility given that we have more credible explanations available.
In the God case, though, the alternative explanations are equally fantastical so we have no criterion to help us determine its likelihood.
Ok, granted. So without evidence for God can we say that the possibility of its existence is extremely remote? Like with fairies? I don't think those that believe in God would be willing to state that. Where as an atheist would be more likely to state that given that atheists are atheists because of a lack of evidence other than the fact that most people believe in the supernatural. What I'm saying is, the atheist has to be bothered by that fact and should attempt to address why that's the case. So far it seems that thoughts of the supernatural are a part of our evolutionary development as intelligent and creative species. But there could be more to it than that. The other problem is that Gods appear to be self contradictory as described by the books or stories that detail them.
Quote from DerekD:
most people believe in the supernatural. What I'm saying is, the atheist has to be bothered by that fact and should attempt to address why that's the case
What gives you that idea? I see no logical basis for that statement. Nor am I bothered by the fact that people believe in ghosts and goblins. As I have said here, the majority of people are actively fooling themselves about many thing, choosing to believe that which causes them the least cognitive dissonance. I believe there have been quite a few controlled studies that show that this is the case - most people will tend to believe whatever causes them the least grief. So it's no surprise to me that people believe in fairly tales. I have no need to ask why they do.
(The whole idea that belief in God is 'genetic' is pure assertion at this point - there is no evidence to support it in any way).