Topic: Science and Religion? - page 2. (Read 1935 times)

No but if you and I make a car, aren't we both the creators? Or do we suddenly become one? Answer the question, you and I, we both work on the design of a car and we start building it, who is the creator? Aren't we both the creators?

How in the world goofy are you? Just because your body is made up of millions of parts, doesn't mean that there are a bunch of little Astargaths running around loose inside of you.

First of all you have to prove there is such a thing as "outside the universe" which you have not. Second of all, you are the one claiming to know there is 1 single creatoe there, ask yourself the same question lmao, did you go there to find out? Your brain is fucked up.

Yes, people have to work together to create a car, so what? Are they not multiple people? If you and I work on a car, are we suddenly 1 person because we are working together? What kind of retarded logic are you using here?

No, you said:
1. All my premises are wrong;
2. That you accepted them as true.

Any joker who knows that there is something wrong, yet accepts it as true, really needs to have his head examined.

Then, stating the obvious, that some wrong premises don't show something... Why would wrong premises show something? It's obvious that if there are some wrong premises, whatever they show is probably wrong, as well, right? I mean, I suppose there could be some wrong premises somewhere that accidentally show something right for some wrong reasons, or because of some misinterpretation, or by simple accident... but even talking about it without showing some reason, or detail, is goofier than the wrong premises.

Any time you want to show us how you got into outside-the-universe to find out the number of creators, all you have to do is show us how you did it. Up until then, since all we can see about outside-the-universe is one O-T-U. We can't even tell if we would begin to understand anything about whatever it is that's out there, because we only think in universe mindsets.

One of the biggest problems with complexity when creating things is working together. In the past I have used the example of people making a car. If they don't act as one, the pistons won't fit the cylinders. Some of the doors will be on backward or upside down. The wiring system won't hook to the battery, or will short the battery out when the connection is finally made. Since all we know about is one O-T-U, the best thinking would suggest that there is one creator. Otherwise the universe would never have worked.

You say that you did me a big favor. But then you demean me by telling me that all of my premises are wrong. Do you think you doing me a favor by not showing me HOW all my premises are wrong, or even stating what all my wrong premises are? You could PM me, you know, so that you don't hurt my feelings by explaining all my wrongs to everybody. Seems that you kinda are showing us that you are a bit mixed up. Have you been drinking again?

No, i said even after accepting all your premises as true, they still do not show a single creator. Because they actually point to multiple creators, specially complexity.

You are such a funny guy. You accept all my wrong premises, but you won't accept science proof. And then you admit it. That's okay, though. Everybody needs a religion. Why won't you step up to a religion that's right?

Actually, i did you a BIG favor by accepting all your premises which are wrong, even after accepting all of them, they still dont prove a single god as shown in the other thread that you continuously ignore after slme time.

You cant prove everything has a cause.

You cant prove only more complex stuff can create less complex stuff.

You cant prove there is 1 single creator and not multiple.

You have shown that you are unable to accept scientific proof, so you are locked in your own fanatic cult. You are a perfect example of the relationship between science and religion.

You have been unable to prove god created everything in the other thread so why do you keep claiming such thing? You still cannot prove there is only 1 creator and not multiple.

Since God invented everything, and science only brings a little of it out into the open, religion far surpasses science... even the science of Einsteinian relativity, or his science of the aether.

Exactly, whether he was right or wrong does not even matter because he was using science and the scientific method to determine those concepts, not the bible. You still havent shown anyone using something in the bible to invent something. Bible is useless, even for morals as it contains laws supporting slavery or even rape or murder.

But Einstein wasn't wrong about the fact that the aether exists. But if he said he was wrong, where? And what does his being right or wrong about something have to do with science and religion?

You still haven't showed where Einstein has contradicted himself, although you essentially said it in a previous post, shown above. Humor me, and repeat what you are talking about regarding this.

It seems that you like to continually mix things up just to attempt to prove me wrong in something. Your raging and scoffing remind me of what Solomon said, Proverbs 29:9:

And thats exactly why Einstein was a genius and you aren't. He can admit when he is wrong, he is not contradicting himself. You on the other hand will NEVER ever admit when you are wrong, even when you linked an article that was mocking creationists as evidence for creationism lol, do you remember that one?

All you are saying is that one of the great high priests of the science religion (Einstein) has contradicted himself sufficiently enough that no sane person would ever want to accept science... if he wants to remain sane, that is.

Since that is the way you feel about science, no wonder you are having trouble figuring out the relationship between science and religion.



EDIT: Btw, Alzheimer is a name. So it should be capitalized. When you don't place the apostrophe before the "s" - Alzheimers - you are simply talking about more than one person, whose names are "Alzheimer." If you mean the disease, it's written "Alzheimer's," short for "Alzheimer's disease." Do I have to explain everything to you?

Yes and then he came up with relativity and said he could NOT prove the existence of aether which was shown in my post above, your alzheimers is getting worse. Bottom line is, even if aether was real, its still science, nothing to do with religion here, again proving religion to be totally useless when it comes to technological development.

Now you know more than Einstein, eh? You seem to be claiming that you do. You even quoted a post of mine in your post at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.51612730, where I showed you that Einstein, himself, acknowledged the aether, and essentially said that it filled all of space.

I know. It's fun contradicting yourself on a continual basis, right? But it isn't really fun watching you essentially destroy yourself. So I have to pity whatever kind of doofus you really are.

I just told you there is not enough evidence for it and you come here claiming that aether IS this or that, how the fuck do you know what aether is or if it exists at all? Are you trying to say you are smarter than scientists and somehow always know things they dont but with 0 evidence provided? Maybe you are god.

Since it is empty space that contains aether, and since such empty space fills all the volume of every atom (outside of the tiny volume of the nucleus and electrons), The aether is all over the place. Why is not the aether the priority focus of essentially every scientist, since it is the "substance" that fills all things way more than matter and energy?

What are you really trying to say about scientists? That they are stupid? That they can't even figure out what is important? Or maybe, that they have something to hide, right?

Just because their focus is directed at matter and energy things by their teachers, one would think that many of them would realize that the "substance" of empty space is the most important thing of all, since it holds everything else.

The point? They are ignoring the aether. Oh, sure. A few of them dabble in it. But essentially they are ignoring it.

Do they ignore it? They don't ignore it, Einstein himself talked about Aether, for example, newton too, they simply couldn't really prove it, right now there are scientists still working on it : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory but it just doesn't have enough evidence behind it to be the accepted theory, it's not because scientists ''ignore it'' lol.


 ''In physics, aether theories (also known as ether theories) propose the existence of a medium, a space-filling substance or field, thought to be necessary as a transmission medium for the propagation of electromagnetic or gravitational forces. Since the development of special relativity, theories using a substantial aether fell out of use in modern physics, and are now joined by more abstract models''

But that isn't the point.

The point revolves around the science that scientists want to accept. People like the clear way Einstein stated Relativity. So they ignore aether theory, micro gravitation theory, electric universe theory, and a whole lot of theories that might even be better at explaining things than Relativity. It's a personal preference. And for those who aren't studied in, say, Relativity, they simply get on board because of the popularity of a scientist who pushes a popular theory. The theory, itself, might be worse than a whole bunch of other theories, or some science that is not even a theory, but the choice is made for reasons other than the science involved.

Take Dawkins and evolution. Dawkins might be a bit of an evolution scientist. But he is mostly a popular mouth that says all kinds of things he can't scientifically back up. And he even admits this in his books.

Many forensic cases are being overturned because forensic science isn't accurate AND because it wasn't really followed anyway. Yet there was a guilty verdict because the jury trusted the forensic people.

The only reason a person goes to prison for a crime like you explained above is, he doesn't have enough sense to stand up for his rights. So, he volunteered for prison. Almost never will circumstantial evidence convict a person who firmly demands his rights: witness and conclusive evidence. OJ Simpson is an example of this.