Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Let's get it all together and stop with the retard-tacular threads, mmkay?

1. Can science prove/disprove God?

No. God isn't testable. People can offer logical reasons why God may or may not exist, but that's not science.

2. Is the scientific theory applicable to God?

From Wikipedia:

Thus, no.

3. Does evolution disprove Christianity?

No. Let us assume that the evolutionary theory of life's origins and the development of current life is correct.

What does this do to Christianity? Not a whole lot. The only thing it does is force a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. The rest of the Bible, oddly enough, isn't really affected. And God doesn't much care.

4. Why haven't humans created artificial life yet?

Despite our ever-increasing levels of technological advancement, we have not yet reached a level where manufacturing life is possible.

5. What will happen to Christianity if humans create artificial life?

Not much of anything.

6.

You're an idiot. Go to your room.

7. Why are creation scientists ostracized by evolutionists?

For the same reason that those retarded "neo-pagan Christian buddhists" (or whatever the **** they call themselves) are ostracized by other Christians: deviation from the norm and what is believed to be truth.

8. Was this thread necessary?

**** off.

There, I've basically combined a million crap-ass JIA threads into one thread that succinctly deals with every "issue" he has raised.

"crap-tacular". I love this word.

Originally posted by FeceMan
7. Why are creation "scientists" ostracized by actual scientists?

Because it's not science.Fixed.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Let's get it all together and stop with the retard-tacular threads, mmkay?

1. Can science prove/disprove God?

No. God isn't testable. People can offer logical reasons why God may or may not exist, but that's not science.

2. Is the scientific theory applicable to God?

From Wikipedia:

Thus, no.

3. Does evolution disprove Christianity?

No. Let us assume that the evolutionary theory of life's origins and the development of current life is correct.

What does this do to Christianity? Not a whole lot. The only thing it does is force a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. The rest of the Bible, oddly enough, isn't really affected. And God doesn't much care.

4. Why haven't humans created artificial life yet?

Despite our ever-increasing levels of technological advancement, we have not yet reached a level where manufacturing life is possible.

5. What will happen to Christianity if humans create artificial life?

Not much of anything.

6.

You're an idiot. Go to your room.

7. Why are creation scientists ostracized by evolutionists?

For the same reason that those retarded "neo-pagan Christian buddhists" (or whatever the **** they call themselves) are ostracized by other Christians: deviation from the norm and what is believed to be truth.

8. Was this thread necessary?

**** off.

There, I've basically combined a million crap-ass JIA threads into one thread that succinctly deals with every "issue" he has raised.

Ijole guey!

You just ass-raped JIA with a sandpaper condom!

Originally posted by FeceMan
Let's get it all together and stop with the retard-tacular threads, mmkay?

1. Can science prove/disprove God?

No. God isn't testable. People can offer logical reasons why God may or may not exist, but that's not science.

2. Is the scientific theory applicable to God?

From Wikipedia:

Thus, no.

3. Does evolution disprove Christianity?

No. Let us assume that the evolutionary theory of life's origins and the development of current life is correct.

What does this do to Christianity? Not a whole lot. The only thing it does is force a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. The rest of the Bible, oddly enough, isn't really affected. And God doesn't much care.

4. Why haven't humans created artificial life yet?

Despite our ever-increasing levels of technological advancement, we have not yet reached a level where manufacturing life is possible.

5. What will happen to Christianity if humans create artificial life?

Not much of anything.

6.

You're an idiot. Go to your room.

7. Why are creation scientists ostracized by evolutionists?

For the same reason that those retarded "neo-pagan Christian buddhists" (or whatever the **** they call themselves) are ostracized by other Christians: deviation from the norm and what is believed to be truth.

8. Was this thread necessary?

**** off.

There, I've basically combined a million crap-ass JIA threads into one thread that succinctly deals with every "issue" he has raised.

1.if god claims to have defineable charateristics and claims to physically interfer in the affairs of the world then science can test the claims of possibility of such interferences and characteristics and eliminate MODELS of god. not a POSSIBLE diety itself.

2. scientific theory is applicable to a god with any defineable characteristics and a god who claims to interfere with the laws of the world and its events which can be tested and analysed to be possible or not. since the judeo/christian/islamic/hindu god/s has these two characteristics, therefore it is at the very least, partially{if not completely} subject to scientific theory in the confines of events/characteristics/physical phenomenon, that it claims.

3. evolution disproves genesis literally. either you take the entire bible literally or take the entire bible non literally. you cant very miuch establish middle ground because no1 can claim to know exactly which parts are literal or non literal.

4. we can theoretically manufactrue life. its impractical but not impossible now. we can on the other hand practically manufacture parts of life and simple live components like skin etc.

5. it will for one, disprove the fact that a mystical soul is required for life to come into being. it will also disprove the claim that only god can create "life"/soul. if neither of these concepts have any meaning in the form of christianity you follow, then ofcourse, christianity isnt affected.

6. blank

7. creation sceintists are ostracised partly because of people who believe in evolution as more than just an established theory. partly because of the discrepancy established by what science knows and what they believe{again there are many TYPES of creationist scientists and its not fair to put them all in the same box}. also those creationists who claim a biblical/christian/judaic GOD made life/universe in the alloted amount of biblical time/elements etc according to their beliefs are rightly subject to criticism because their beliefs are self contradictory. yet it is wrong to ATTACK them. scientific criticism and attack should be kept seperate.

8. erm
some of those were not brought up by jia.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Let's get it all together and stop with the retard-tacular threads, mmkay?

1. Can science prove/disprove God?

No. God isn't testable. People can offer logical reasons why God may or may not exist, but that's not science.

2. Is the scientific theory applicable to God?

From Wikipedia:

Thus, no.

3. Does evolution disprove Christianity?

No. Let us assume that the evolutionary theory of life's origins and the development of current life is correct.

What does this do to Christianity? Not a whole lot. The only thing it does is force a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. The rest of the Bible, oddly enough, isn't really affected. And God doesn't much care.

4. Why haven't humans created artificial life yet?

Despite our ever-increasing levels of technological advancement, we have not yet reached a level where manufacturing life is possible.

5. What will happen to Christianity if humans create artificial life?

Not much of anything.

6.

You're an idiot. Go to your room.

7. Why are creation scientists ostracized by evolutionists?

For the same reason that those retarded "neo-pagan Christian buddhists" (or whatever the **** they call themselves) are ostracized by other Christians: deviation from the norm and what is believed to be truth.

8. Was this thread necessary?

**** off.

There, I've basically combined a million crap-ass JIA threads into one thread that succinctly deals with every "issue" he has raised.

I approve this message.

Originally posted by Alliance
I approve this message.

As do I.

As do we all. Except me.

Anyway, good point, Pooman.

Yes.

Originally posted by Alliance
I approve this message. Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
As do I. Figures.


Leonheart, for a change, brought up a few good points though. Some characteristics of claimed Gods are of course testable and relating to science. The metaphysical consept of course is something else. Kinda like with Unicorns really.

eeeey, cant we all just get along man, we all share the same differences dudes and dudettes

just smoke a spliff n forget the troubles man boris
groupgroupgroup
hooverhooverhoover

Originally posted by FeceMan
Can science prove/disprove God? Empirical science? No, by definition, as "God" is commonly regarded as a transcendent entity.

Is the scientific theory applicable to God? Scientific method, on the other hand, does not seem limited to empirica (afaik, there is no empirical evidence for this).

Originally posted by Mindship
Scientific method, on the other hand, does not seem limited to empirica (afaik, there is no empirical evidence for this).

The scientific method does not equal science.

Originally posted by Alliance
The scientific method does not equal science. Correct, it does not. "Science," strictly speaking, is a philosophy (traditionally, empirical), as well as a practice / method which has oft been described as "applied common sense."

Can this method be applied to the study of transcendent reality? Theoretically, there's no logical reason / empirical proof why it can't. Can science be applied? Yes, if the philosophy changes to include any unmediated / direct perceptions of a phenomenon, whether it is empirical or not (imagining your mother's face would be an example of a directly perceived but nonempirical phenomenon).

Indeed, adhering strictly to empiricism, science degrades into scientism, which is ultimately self-contradicting.

Originally posted by Mindship
Correct, it does not. "Science," strictly speaking, is a philosophy (traditionally, empirical), as well as a practice / method which has oft been described as "applied common sense."

Can this method be applied to the study of transcendent reality? Theoretically, there's no logical reason / empirical proof why it can't. Can science be applied? Yes, if the philosophy changes to include any unmediated / direct perceptions of a phenomenon, whether it is empirical or not (imagining your mother's face would be an example of a directly perceived but nonempirical phenomenon).

Indeed, adhering strictly to empiricism, science degrades into scientism, which is ultimately self-contradicting.

Excellent post Mindship, very analytical.

Originally posted by Mindship
(imagining your mother's face would be an example of a directly perceived but nonempirical phenomenon).



REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAALLY?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Excellent post Mindship, very analytical. I was having a lucid moment.


Originally posted by inimalist
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAALLY?

Well, could be a dad's face, too (equal opportunity imagineer).

Originally posted by Mindship
Well, could be a dad's face, too (equal opportunity imagineer).

Not to throw the whole thread off topic, but I would say that mental images are empirical, if specific to the brain they are being empirically generated from

but ya, that just caught me while I was reading you post. I agree with everything else aside from being a nit picker.

Originally posted by inimalist
but I would say that mental images are empirical
You would.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
1.if god claims to have defineable charateristics and claims to physically interfer in the affairs of the world then science can test the claims of possibility of such interferences and characteristics and eliminate MODELS of god. not a POSSIBLE diety itself.
God doesn't claim to "physically interfere" in worldly affairs. Either He does or He doesn't. And, since He doesn't interfere unless He doesn't want to...

God doesn't have a physical form. God can have a physical form, but that doesn't mean He does all the time. (Here comes the Shakya response: "Then your God is limited, dar-hee-harh."

The only record we have of direct intervention by God is a historical record that doesn't matter 'cause it's in the Bible (and thus automatically wrong).

You fail.

Parts of the Bible are clearly symbolic/metaphorical (i.e., "The LORD is my shepherd," 'cause we know that people are sheep and God's a herdsman). If part of the Bible doesn't match up with what we know, then that part of the Bible must be intended to be taken non-literally (since God doesn't lie). Paul writes that all Scripture is "God-breathed and useful for instruction," and non-literalistic interpretations of Genesis can be used for instruction.

kthx.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Because, clearly, anything man-made doesn't have a soul.

You're going to have to elaborate and use less wall-of-text.

Correct.