Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: ObliviousSeeker]
    #8544568 -

How can you possibly know what he understands or does not?  :confused:  Are you claiming that he does not understand the theory of death anxiety, or of God?  Actually, God would be a hypothesis, and not a theory.  Theories have been tested and shown to have predictive value.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8544585 -

I dont think God could be a hypothesis either.  To be a hypothesis there has to be a conceivable way to falsify the hypothesis, but there is not.  At the moment, there is no way to test anything outside the universe so no claim about its nature can be hypothesized - in science at least.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: DieCommie]
    #8544745 -

Yes, I agree that God is not a scientifically-valid hypothesis, but the concept does qualify in terms of being a "tentative explanation."  The concept of God is non-falsifiable, and thus cannot be investigated via the scientific method.

Here are some ideas I posted previously regarding spiritual/philosophical critical investigation:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4499407#4499407

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8544772 -

Veritas said:
If you had actually read my initial post, you would realize that I did not say "God does not exist"


The "you" in "if it were, you wouldn't know what you were claiming doesn't exist with the statement "God doesn't exist," did not refer to yourself, but was a general "you," referring to the action, not a specific person.

Quote:
nor "God is silly."  But thanks ever so for misquoting me.  :grin:


That was to summarize and combine several statements of yours, not a literal quote.





Quote:
The "definition" of God which you are attributing to me was, in fact, presented by Oblivious Seeker.  Here is my post in response to his definition:


That is true, sorry.

Quote:
Also, I did not bring up the God of the Bible.  This thread concerns scientific evidence for the Bible vs. evolution.  I clarified that I was addressing the thread topic, and the definition of God as presented by the OP.


Yes, you identified the God you were talking about as the biblical God:

"You redefine the Biblical idea of God in mid-discussion to mean "vibrating energy", assert negative things about who I am as a person "

Edited by Disco Cat (06/20/08 02:51 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8544782 -

Veritas said:
Disco Cat said:
Veritas said:
Well, it is quite clear from your follow-up reply that you have little or no understanding of what a "flame" is.  Unsurprising.  :thumbdown:


The ironic thing for you is that I do understand, while you, likewise ironically, don't. A flame is a substanceless attack.


Incorrect.

Quote:
Flaming (internet)
Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail.

An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree.





Huh? The definition you quoted confirms what I said, exactly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8544787 -

Quote:
"The vibrating energy which comprises all matter" is a more suitable definition for God


How does this not constitute you re-defining the concept of God mid-discussion?  I was responding to the OP's definition of the Biblical God, and all of my comments were quite specifically addressed to his definition.  You then claimed that MY concept of God was undeveloped, based upon HIS definition of God, and proceeded to criticize my intellect and knowledge base.

It is totally inaccurate to summarize my comments by posting "God is silly," as though it was a quote.  If you look at my actual post, rather than responding to a false idea of what I posted, you will see that I never this, nor anything which can be accurately summarized as such.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Disco Cat]
    #8544804 -

Disco Cat said:
Veritas said:
Disco Cat said:
Veritas said:
Well, it is quite clear from your follow-up reply that you have little or no understanding of what a "flame" is.  Unsurprising.  :thumbdown:


The ironic thing for you is that I do understand, while you, likewise ironically, don't. A flame is a substanceless attack.


Incorrect.

Quote:
Flaming (internet)
Flaming is the hostile and insulting interaction between Internet users. Flaming usually occurs in the social context of a discussion board, Internet Relay Chat (IRC) or even through e-mail.

An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree.





Huh? The definition you quoted confirms what I said, exactly.


The substance (or lack thereof) of your personal comments has nothing to do with this quote.  You repeatedly stated that you were NOT flaming, merely stating the truth (as you saw it.)  If the truth (as you see it) consists of negative assertions regarding another poster, it is a flame.

If you review the rules of this forum, perhaps you may recognize the difference between critically addressing ideas vs. critically addressing the person posting the ideas.

To clarify my POV on the matter of making negative observations regarding the personal qualities of other posters:  I see it as both unconstructive, distracting from the purpose of this forum (debate of ideas) and much  less likely to result in an understanding of the ideas being discussed.  Addressing one's criticism at the person rather than the idea is likely to put them on the defensive, which contributes nothing to the discussion.

Edited by Veritas (06/20/08 03:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is there more scientific evidence supporting the Bible than Evolution? [Re: Veritas]
    #8544824 -

God is a warm summer day with big fluffy white clouds and a gentle breeze shooing the Monarch butterflies and the sound of a gurgling brook as a background to children's laughter. :heart:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,419 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* Gays and the Bible
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 4,924 42 03/03/04 12:11 PM
by Sclorch
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )		 sir tripsalot 3,605 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* Are you hostile to the idea of the evolution of consciousness?
( 1 2 3 all )		 exclusive58 3,288 42 01/08/05 05:03 AM
by Cosm
* Evidence that OBE's do not relate to the physical world?
( 1 2 all )		 PHARMAKOS 1,891 22 05/22/04 12:46 PM
by Zero7a1
* Philosophical evidence that God Probably does not exist.
( 1 2 3 all )		 SpecialEd 9,953 52 02/07/04 06:30 PM
by nubious
* UFOs and Scientific Research
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 Swami 13,653 116 11/11/02 09:58 AM
by Xlea321
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Anonymous 4,756 64 01/30/03 06:45 AM
by Teragon

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
8,860 topic views. 1 members, 41 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.