Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 406. (Read 845654 times)

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

How, then, may a belief in any something be compromised without an arbitrary obstinance?

No one can understand everything about God.  

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense.  I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.  

http://www.venganza.org/

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

My friend I am curious, why do you have two different names for the FSM?  What do they signify?

At the base of quantum mechanics, room for everything can be found. However, man has neither exhausted mathematics, nor has he proven that there is nothing existing outside of math. Math is NOT necessarily all-inclusive.

Man may have been created infinite and unlimited. But, we, as we are now, certainly are not unlimited. If we were, we all would make ourselves to be healthy enough to live a few hundred more years, at least. And we would travel the stars to see all the things that God placed there for us, right in our bodies, not in some spiritual plane (no pun intended) after we are dead.

Man, in Adam and Eve, broke the infinty-ness and unlimited-ness when they sinned. We, as their descendants, have inherited it through our genes, if not through our spirits.

The hierarchy of God first, Jesus in God, and we in Jesus is the reality of existence. Anyone who will not accept this will have used the God-power that is within, to remove himself not only from God, but also from existence. And it won't be fun for those who remove themselves, anymore than strangling yourself to death with your own hands would be fun.

This isn't my idea. It is in the New Testament, in Paul's letters.

Existence has room for everything.

Not "dissing" science at all. Simply against the stating as truth and reality certain scientific findings that are theory or less than theory. That's it in a nutshell. Included in the nutshell are the things that say Evolution is real, and the universe is billions of years old, because they include the "if"s at their base or core. If means maybe and maybe not. State it clearly and truthfully, right out in the open, rather than turning it into a religion.

BADecker,

Man was created infinite and unlimited. I am not here to pull you, my brother, down.

We are all one infinite whole. The Mission is great and our disagreement on the subject of hierarchies is of no consequence. I do not harden my heart against your words.

We should not waste time on our ever-present critics and attackers. Let us not enter into doctrinal quarrels, least of all with one-another. You and I should never be without something to do of great purpose.

 

No it doesn't.  Your lack of pasta is making you delusional my friend.

But feel free to show me with a link where it says the FSM is male:   http://www.venganza.org/

Why do you ask "Why...the 'ifs'...?"   I literally just explained it.

Here:

Indigestion?

Scripture says Spirit and Father.

The FSM/God doesn't punish people for not worshipping him.  If someone told you that, they probably hadn't eaten his body in a while and were confused. 

BTW - We don't know if God is a him or a her.  The scripture doesn't say.  

The bad part isn't in any potential punishment, except if you call missing out on the joys of being with God punishment.

Actually, it is difficult to say it properly. It amounts to something like this: The joys of being with God forever so outweigh the punishments for not being with Him, that just for the joy do I want to be with Him, rather than to avoid the punishment.

I have faith that the FSM will keep me in good shape.  You don't get punished for worshipping God. 

Try a double portion. You just might be able to update your avatar.   

I can only find so much of him at a time.  Especially at the Olive Garden, where they dish out unlimited God.