Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[DOC]

But you just said that christianity is only at best equal to science in that some people believe in science without evidence. EVERYONE believes in christianity without eviedence for it.

But there is evidence for it. There is historical evidence, empirical evidence, and the evidence of logic.

 

[paximperium]

But there is evidence for it.

No.

There is historical evidence,

It depends. There is some.

empirical evidence, and the evidence of logic.

No and no. Hence your complete failure of your OP of this entire thread.

 

[Lothian]

But even if the entire universe (matter and space) did expand from something smaller than one atom (like the current theory states) -- that doesn't mean God didn't cause it to happen. And actually it would seem more plausible to me that an intelligent being would cause such an incredible event than for it to happen by non-intelligent random forces.

Far be it for me to dampen your new found enthusiasm for the big bang but wouldn't the intelligent being have been rather squashed.

 

[joobz]

But even if the entire universe (matter and space) did expand from something smaller than one atom (like the current theory states) -- that doesn't mean God didn't cause it to happen.

Of course not. But it also doesn't mean that tapioca didn't eat god and poop out the universe either.

 

[joobz]

But there is evidence for it.

If there was, you would have presented it. All you have presented were a series of non sequitors and ill thought logical arguments. If you were to respond to this post with a regurgitation of the same already defeated arguments, it would only prove my point that you have no ACTUAL evidence, but these same logical fallacies.

 

[dafydd]

But there is evidence for it. There is historical evidence, empirical evidence, and the evidence of logic.

No there isn't,and belief in some kind of sky daddy/daddies/mom/mommies (pick any combination you like) is never logical,quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Paulhoff]

So are you saying we can now stop calling it the Big Bang "Theory" because there is now "proof" of it?

But even if the entire universe (matter and space) did expand from something smaller than one atom (like the current theory states) -- that doesn't mean God didn't cause it to happen. And actually it would seem more plausible to me that an intelligent being would cause such an incredible event than for it to happen by non-intelligent random forces.

Tell me, what does a so-called god explain, what does a so-called god help me with in understand anything, how does it help with a theory about something? It doesn't, because all you need to do with a so-called god is make it anything you what it to be for that information you don’t have, and/or you personally don’t understand and/or you personally don’t like as in, the big band, evolution etc. It doesn’t help with any theory because it is un-testable and a theory to be useful has to be testable, it has to show how something works. Your so-called god is the god the gaps, it is useless in understanding anything. It is a cheap way out, no learning is needed, the use of your brain is not expected, just make your so-called god up to fit what you in the end what the universe to be, make your so-called god in your mind’s image. Many of us here don't need to know everything, we can live a life without knowing, we don’t need to have a so-called god of gaps, because in truth it does not help us to know anything and we see how that idea is greatly flawed.

Paul

 

[wollery]

So are you saying we can now stop calling it the Big Bang "Theory" because there is now "proof" of it?

Thank you for demonstrating conclusively that you don't know what the term "theory" means in a scientific sense.

But even if the entire universe (matter and space) did expand from something smaller than one atom (like the current theory states) -- that doesn't mean God didn't cause it to happen.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't preclude any of an infinite number of other explanations either.

Did you have a point?

And actually it would seem more plausible to me that an intelligent being would cause such an incredible event than for it to happen by non-intelligent random forces.

I'm sure it would seem more plausible to you.

So what?

 

[Simon39759]

So are you saying we can now stop calling it the Big Bang "Theory" because there is now "proof" of it?

But even if the entire universe (matter and space) did expand from something smaller than one atom (like the current theory states) -- that doesn't mean God didn't cause it to happen. And actually it would seem more plausible to me that an intelligent being would cause such an incredible event than for it to happen by non-intelligent random forces.

Ok... So you have no idea about the nature of Science.
Considering that you have been on these fora for quite a while now, I have trouble imagining that nobody explained it for you.

But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and here is how it works:

-Bob observes a phenomenon (eg. the apple fall down, towards the ground). This direct observation is called a fact.

-Bob wonders about the phenomenon and look for more example of it happening.

-If this phenomenon seems to be systematic (all apple and other fruits and vegetables fall toward the ground), Bob can concludes this is a universal phenomenon. This is translated by a law, in this case, the law of universal grocery.

-If Bob has an explanation for these phenomena and the law, this explanation becomes a hypothesis

-This hypothesis, in turn allows to make predictions. These predictions are compared to what happen in reality, more observations, meaning more facts: (if I drop a pea and a watermelon in a vacuum, they should accelerate at the same rate) this allows to check the hypothesis.

-Of course, if these tests disprove the hypothesis, (bananas go up! -insert homoerotic joke here, if you must-), it is then mercilessly discarded or undergo modifications.
Similarly, if one observation is made that contradict the law, the observation is finned according to the severity of the violati... Actually, no, the Law is just discarded as 'not being a natural law finally, my bad, carry on'.

-If, after robust testing, the hypothesis survives, it can be taken seriously. At this point, it is referred to as a theory (the theory of universal grocery).

-Please note that a law is not 'better' than a theory.
In fact, as a theory as some explicative power to it than a law lacks, it could be considered better. In fact, for many theory, you could write down a corresponding law (for example describing that species change through time would be considered the 'Law of Evolution'), but that'd be rather useless.

-Obviously, a theory can and will still be tested and there is always a chance that it will end up being proven wrong. But, of course, the more testing a theory has been through, the more thorough the testing, the less likely it is that something will come up that was previously overlooked.
So, a theory, is never, ever proven and it would be an especially mistaken statement to assume that a 'proven theory' become a law.

The best we can say is that a theory has been very thoroughly tested and is
unlikely to be disproved at that point.
The Theory of Evolution is like that.

As the sticker says: 'This book contains material about the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is just a theory, which means the highest level of confidence a scientific explanation can reach, and has been as thoroughly tested than any other such theory in the history of Science. As such it should be approached with an open mind, considered critically and enthusiastically adopted as a beautiful achievement of the human mind!'



So, there you go. Hope that clears up your little misunderstanding...

 

[Amazer]

So, there you go. Hope that clears up your little misunderstanding...

Don't get your hopes up... DOC seems to have a supernatural ability to misunderstand things

 

[DOC]

Ok... So you have no idea about the nature of Science.
Considering that you have been on these fora for quite a while now, I have trouble imagining that nobody explained it for you.

But, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and here is how it works:

-Bob observes a phenomenon (eg. the apple fall down, towards the ground). This direct observation is called a fact.

-Bob wonders about the phenomenon and look for more example of it happening.

-If this phenomenon seems to be systematic (all apple and other fruits and vegetables fall toward the ground), Bob can concludes this is a universal phenomenon. This is translated by a law, in this case, the law of universal grocery.

-If Bob has an explanation for these phenomena and the law, this explanation becomes a hypothesis

-This hypothesis, in turn allows to make predictions. These predictions are compared to what happen in reality, more observations, meaning more facts: (if I drop a pea and a watermelon in a vacuum, they should accelerate at the same rate) this allows to check the hypothesis.

-Of course, if these tests disprove the hypothesis, (bananas go up! -insert homoerotic joke here, if you must-), it is then mercilessly discarded or undergo modifications.
Similarly, if one observation is made that contradict the law, the observation is finned according to the severity of the violati... Actually, no, the Law is just discarded as 'not being a natural law finally, my bad, carry on'.

-If, after robust testing, the hypothesis survives, it can be taken seriously. At this point, it is referred to as a theory (the theory of universal grocery).

-Please note that a law is not 'better' than a theory.
In fact, as a theory as some explicative power to it than a law lacks, it could be considered better. In fact, for many theory, you could write down a corresponding law (for example describing that species change through time would be considered the 'Law of Evolution'), but that'd be rather useless.

-Obviously, a theory can and will still be tested and there is always a chance that it will end up being proven wrong. But, of course, the more testing a theory has been through, the more thorough the testing, the less likely it is that something will come up that was previously overlooked.
So, a theory, is never, ever proven and it would be an especially mistaken statement to assume that a 'proven theory' become a law.

The best we can say is that a theory has been very thoroughly tested and is
unlikely to be disproved at that point.
The Theory of Evolution is like that.

As the sticker says: 'This book contains material about the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is just a theory, which means the highest level of confidence a scientific explanation can reach, and has been as thoroughly tested than any other such theory in the history of Science. As such it should be approached with an open mind, considered critically and enthusiastically adopted as a beautiful achievement of the human mind!'



So, there you go. Hope that clears up your little misunderstanding...

There is no misunderstanding, The Big Bang Theory is just what it says. It is a theory where there is no absolute proof that it is true. And as I stated even if it was proven absolutely true that doesn't mean God didn't cause it.

 

[DOC]

No there isn't,and belief in some kind of sky daddy/daddies/mom/mommies (pick any combination you like) is never logical,quite the opposite in fact.

OK so it's your belief that Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and all the other presidents were/are illogical. You are entitled to your belief.

 

[joobz]

There is no misunderstanding, The Big Bang Theory is just what it says. It is a theory where there is no absolute proof that it is true.

And (don't forget) that all presently available data support. It can't be given the title theory unless it has some basis in observed fact.

Now, contrast this with religion, and you'll see that not even god can be called a "theory". It's left at the hypothesis stage, and a poor one at that.

And as I stated even if it was proven absolutely true that doesn't mean God didn't cause it.

And that doesn't mean that god wasn't made by a lima bean.

 

[Simon39759]

There is no misunderstanding, The Big Bang Theory is just what it says. It is a theory where there is no absolute proof that it is true. And as I stated even if it was proven absolutely true that doesn't mean God didn't cause it.

There are never absolute truth of anything. Ever.
That's why a theory is the highest level of 'truth' that any explanation can achieve. EVER.

If it was not a misunderstanding on your part, then it means that your gross misrepresentation of a scientific theory was purposeful.

Fair enough, I will keep in mind your self admission of bad faith.

 

[joobz]

Fair enough, I will keep in mind your self admission of bad faith.

This is an excellent point and one that should always be considered when reading a post by DOC.

 

[paximperium]

There is no misunderstanding,

So you purposefully made up some false conflict? Thanks for coming clean about your dishonesty.

The Big Bang Theory is just what it says. It is a theory where there is no absolute proof that it is true.

Yes. You state this as if it is a bad thing.

And as I stated even if it was proven absolutely true that doesn't mean God didn't cause it.

Your continued use of this exceedingly stupid argument has as much validity as a some insane lunatic claiming he is Napoleon reborn who can fly into space using his spirit farts. Mr Napoleon has the excuse of insanity, what's yours?

 

[temporalillusion]

There is no misunderstanding, The Big Bang Theory is just what it says. It is a theory where there is no absolute proof that it is true.

There's no such thing as absolute proof in science, all knowledge is provisional.

And as I stated even if it was proven absolutely true that doesn't mean God didn't cause it.

In the same way evolution doesn't say anything about the beginning of life, the Big Bang theory doesn't say anything about the universe beyond a specific time.

So yes, you could say God caused it. You could also say an invisible pink unicorn caused it, and you have exactly the same amount of evidence for each one. Remember, the # of people that believe something is not evidence.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

OK so it's your belief that Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and all the other presidents were/are illogical.

On this issue? You bet your ass I think they're being irrational if that is what they truly believe. However, as long as they run the country well, obey the Constitution, and keep their irrationalities in their pants and out of our laws, then I'm willing to forgive them.

If I am alive the day that an atheist becomes president and if he/she does a poor job in office, then guess what? I'm voting against them at the next electoral opportunity. I can't say the same for others, of course. Given the fact that your fellow fundamental retards voted for Dubbya twice indicates that all you care about is whether the president humps his Bible as hard as you do.

You are entitled to your belief.

You know, it's funny. Whenever I hear or read a Christian proclaim "You are entitled to your belief" I get the feeling that their sentiment is so hollow, so empty.

Now, why is that....

Oh yeah, its Christianity's oh so noble history of inquisitions, witch hunts, censorship, holy wars, and general jack-booted thuggery. Not to mention their belief that anyone who thinks differently than their cosmic tyrant receives a one way ticket to eternal torture after death. Yes, how very enlightened of your faith.

Spare me your lectures about what you think I'm "entitled" to, DOC. Like everything else you've posted here so far, it's a lie.

 

[kmortis]

There is no misunderstanding, The Big Bang Theory is just what it says. It is a theory where there is no absolute proof that it is true.

While you are correct that there is no absolute proof, all the evidence at our disposal indicated that the big bang did occur. Others have provided it and you've yet to actually digest it so I'm not going to bother.

And as I stated even if it was proven absolutely true that doesn't mean God didn't cause it.

now we can agree. If there was a god, (s)he could have used the big bang, evolution and all the other natural processes that we know to exist. the place where we differ is that I see no necessity for that extra being seeing as that's an added complexity that isn't necessary. For all we know, we're just condensed smoke trails from the pipe of "Bob".

 

[kmortis]

OK so it's your belief that Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and all the other presidents were/are illogical. You are entitled to your belief.

Yes. In as much as ALL humans are illogical. Some of us are aware of this illogic, and take steps to take it into account. Others aren't and don't. Being a president doesn't make you a better witness. It makes your hair turn white and your wrinkles get more pronounced.