Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 219
  1. #41  
    But on whom will the joke be, when you find out that it is invisible jelly goblins?

    The main hinderance in discussions of god(dess) is that one root of belief is faith in something unseen and unknowable. So, your supposition of invisible jelly goblins is just as plausible as the old, white-bearded man leaning out of the clouds, or the many other gods/goddesses worshipped around the world just as fervently and as fully as other groups worship their one god.
    Exactly - my goblins theory is just as plausible as any other. Why do the religious not worship my Goblins?
    HP Pre 3 (UK)
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Could you, if it proved there was some higher power? Again, as you stated in your question, it would come down to personal belief.
    I would require extra-ordinary proof for an extra-ordinary claim, but of course if there is proof I would accept. However if some-one overturns that proof I would stop believing also.

    Surur
  3.    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I have no doubt that aspects of Darwin's theory are true, i.e. adapting to one's environment for survival. But there are several huge wholes in the theory and many still unanswered questions with it.
    I assure you Hobbes, we are not in the midst of a scientific debate between the science of evoultionary biology, and the "science" of creationism. There is no such scientific debate as creationism is not science. There are those that make a choice not to believe in evolution, usually because of the threat posed to their religious beliefs, and even those who seek to discredit the science of evolutionary biology, often for the same reason, but not a scientific debate.
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by checkmate
    Exactly - my goblins theory is just as plausible as any other. Why do the religious not worship my Goblins?
    As L Ron Hubbard.
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    No. Why is it necessary to "explain the universe without God"? In other words, is it necessary to omit the possibility of God and, if so, why?
    There was / is no "necessity" to explain the universe without God. There is only a desire to explain the universe, and that current explanation does not include god.
  6. #46  
    As L Ron Hubbard.
    I thought that was giant octopusses! Speaking of which, I have the sneaky suspicion Scientology is a joke at the expense of the media. At least I hope it is....
    HP Pre 3 (UK)
  7.    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by checkmate
    I thought that was giant octopusses! Speaking of which, I have the sneaky suspicion Scientology is a joke at the expense of the media. At least I hope it is....
    lol, omg that would be so great
  8. #48  
    Speaking of which, I have the sneaky suspicion Scientology is a joke at the expense of the media. At least I hope it is....
    Although, despite my hope this opinion is open for debate and I'd be quite happy to be wrong. That is how scientists work.
    HP Pre 3 (UK)
  9. #49  
    lol, omg that would be so great
    How wierd it would be to suddenly respect the people I presently find so gobsmackingly strange!
    HP Pre 3 (UK)
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I assure you Hobbes, we are not in the midst of a scientific debate between the science of evoultionary biology, and the "science" of creationism. There is no such scientific debate as creationism is not science. There are those that make a choice not to believe in evolution, usually because of the threat posed to their religious beliefs, and even those who seek to discredit the science of evolutionary biology, often for the same reason, but not a scientific debate.
    If you are interested in this debate there are several rather lengthy threads that covers the whole gambit of both sides on this topic:

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showthread.php?t=70817

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showthread.php?t=92304

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showthread.php?t=97008

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showthread.php?t=99162

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showthread.php?t=93588

    http://discuss.treocentral.com/showthread.php?t=88123
  11.    #51  
    You're offering those as evidence of a scientific debate between evolutionary biology and creationism? Or as an example of religious persons choosing not to believe in the science, or to discredit it?
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by checkmate
    Who is the more moral person? The religious man who does good because it will please his god and assure him a place in heaven or the atheist man who does good because he has an empathy for his fellow men.
    I hope you're not positing that these are the only two options.
  13. #53  
    Hobbes, the fun is in the debate. Why would I want to spend 30 minutes reading old threads. I might as well go read the wikipedia then.

    Surur
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by checkmate
    Because trying to shoehorn a belief in God into scientific study is akin to trying to teach mathematics with the belief that 2+2=7. Things simply don't add up that way.
    I didn't say "shoehorn" a belief into it but is it necessary to omit the possibility?
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    There was / is no "necessity" to explain the universe without God. There is only a desire to explain the universe, and that current explanation does not include god.
    A small correction: many theories current today do not include God.
  16. #56  
    But, theoretically, none of those theories can exclude God. Because no alternative to God has been proven or disproven
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I didn't say "shoehorn" a belief into it but is it necessary to omit the possibility?
    I think we just acknowledged the 'possibility' of invisible jelly monsters, so I think the old bearded man who gave his sons blood for us all to drink is at least as possible.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I think we just acknowledged the 'possibility' of invisible jelly monsters, so I think the old bearded man who gave his sons blood for us all to drink is at least as possible.
    Cannibalism as religion. Hmmm. I'm getting hungry.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I didn't say "shoehorn" a belief into it but is it necessary to omit the possibility?
    Thats not really productive, is it. Imagine a geologists going - either this river carved the grand canyon, or God drew a gigantic doodle. Or a biologists going I wonder why this DNA strand folds this way, probably God's sense of humor.

    Adding God does not add any useful explanatory power, which is why he should stay out of science.

    Anyway, why do we insist on the Judaeo-Christian God. Why not many Gods? Maybe Loki made the giants Causeway. Thats as good an explanation as Jesus.

    Surur
  20. #60  
    But what if God(s) used the river to create the gigantic doodle? Or what if God(s) made the H2O molecule possible as a universal solvent, thereby enabling the river water to erode the doodle?

    It's really an interesting and unanswerable thing. It's personal belief.

    And I think your right - God/Loki/Zeus/Shiva. The name we give the belief isn't as important as the belief itself.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions