Yeah, I especially like the part where you countered the facts laid before you about your precious Bible falling short on the whole 'word of god' shtick.
Henry VIII decides he wants to get divorced, voila! goodbye RC, say hello to the "Church of England", now, who do I have to behead to get a CofE Bible thrown together?
Just as I figured. You don't have anything else. So you go and pick on the failings of a human being. So, do you really think that your perfection is good enough?
...Says he who claims science is "weakest" and then provides absolutely no reasoning behind the statement whatsoever. It appears you're the one who has nothing else aside from two tactics: 1) Keep saying the Bible is right, and 2) attack people when they call you out on your bogus thinking.
Care to provide justification for your statements? I remember how you completely failed to create a deductive argument for claims homosexuality is "bad" and "unnatural" even when I created a template for you.
Care to try again?
Premise 1: Insert here
Premise 2: Insert here
Premises 3, 4, etc.: Insert here
Therefore: Science is the weakest with all of its "ifs"
There you go, sport. There's the template, all you need to do is fill in the premises to reach your conclusion. If you succeed, I (and I'm sure many others) will concede to a superior argument.
Make my day
Here it is about science. All science that can be used in daily life is practical. All the rest of it is based on "if." "If" means that science doesn't know. Science is fantasy, or else it is the weakest religion.
No. Here's the problem you're having: Logic is something you use regardless of whether you're talking about science or the Bible. Accordingly, there are logical rules to be followed in order to demonstrate a sound conclusion. The deductive argument template I've presented you with is recognized globally as a valid format for presenting an argument. The reason behind using it is because it allows you to show how your premises support your conclusion. If you can't soundly support your conclusion in such a format, it means there are gaps in your reasoning, or at the very least there are gaps in your explanation.
That's why I gave you the template to work with. Since you claim to know this stuff front to back, it should be no challenge for you to list your premises in such a way that they undeniably lead to your conclusion.
So far, you have not been able to demonstrate your ability to do this. Accordingly, since you fail to present a concise, succinct argument when challenged, we assume you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Instead, you resort to ad hominem attacks which are globally recognized as the absolute weakest type of argument as it doesn't even address the topic whatsoever.
If you can't formulate a deductive argument to support your conclusion that "science is weakest," then you must concede to our superior arguments. No amount of smiley faces, smug-but-ignorant passive aggression, etc. will make you any more right. But I suspect being right isn't as much of a priority to you as simply not wanting to admit the possibility that you come off as intellectually retarded.
Precisely the thing that I am talking about with regard to science. Certainly there are parts of science that are logical and actual. But there are other parts that might seem logical and actual in some ways, but haven't been proven yet.
This is the exact way that virtually all religions work. They all have something that makes sense, is logical. In fact, most of them have many things that are logical. But they, also, have the parts that are not proven, and possibly cannot be proven. People believe these unproven parts on
faith.
Consider. If you are a man of science, you know which areas of your field of science are proven, and which areas need more investigation. But, when it comes to an area of science that is not your field, what do you do? You look at the credibility of the scientists that have done work in those areas. Then you either believe them, or you don't. Science is a faith thing. It is religion.
When you scientifically study the Bible and its history of coming together, you find that it is an impossible-to-exist book. If you haven't done the studies yourself, you either believe, or you don't believe those who have done the studies. It's called religion.
Science is too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. It is a religion.
Science is absolutely not too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely. Science is a method. Here, watch:
If you understand that image, then you understand the entirety of the scientific method. Again, science is a method and NOT that which it studies (which is likely too big for anyone to hold in his mind completely).
And, based upon your post, since you have *again* failed to construct a succinct, coherent argument even after I babied you by giving you a fill-in-the-blank template, I'll assume this post concedes the superior argument to me.
Thanks for that
Again, semantics. If scientific method were all we were talking about, then you might be absolutely correct. But when people say "science" nowadays, they also mean all the "stuff" that science has determined about everything.
No, this isn't semantics. I'm correcting your orientation on the context of the topic.
sci·ence
ˈsīəns/Submit
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
That is the Scientific Method. On the other hand, you are talking about science as a body of knowledge, as seen here:
a particular area of this.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"
However, utilizing this definition of science misses the context of the topic at hand. I have no problems agreeing that science doesn't yield knowledge that is capable of explaining the entire Universe and all that it contains, and in fact it cannot due to the problem of inductive reasoning. But that's not what we're talking about.
The reason you're way off base is because you made the following assertion:
Science is weaker [than religion] with all of its "ifs."
This assertion implies that you are talking about taking a religious perspective as a means of study, i.e. a method. You reaffirm this position when you state...:
Make it easy on yourself. Convert!
...thereby further implying that changing the method by which you interpret the Universe, knowledge will be more readily available to us.
Accordingly, you better get another cup of coffee to get focused enough to keep up with me here
