going back a few posts, i always find it funny when science is brought up in a religion conversation. People tend to look at the two like oil and water but I personally dont understand why they cant co-exist, as I stated in a previous thread science is something devised by man to understand what God has created. So we have cells so we evolved so certain things happen certain ways as proved by science, Where does any of this DISprove the existance of God?
but i ask you this finti, has anything ever been shown to disprove the existence of God, cause according to scientific law something cant be true unless its tested and cant be disproven, now archeology and history have provided us proof of Jesus but has science provided anything to disprove his existence
now archeology and history have provided us proof of Jesus but has science provided anything to disprove his existence[QUOTE] never questioned tha fact that a man named jesus or something like it have lived, now that he was divine now thats a totally different story.dont have to disprove gods existence, it is gods followers who have to prove the existence[QUOTE]but i ask you this finti, has anything ever been shown to disprove the existence of God
Cinemaddiction> Most scientists don't believe in God.
Why should we? 🙂
Jnolan> Science is our way of describing Nature. A religious person would say “God’s creation.”
Sure, the two can co-exist. There are and were religious scientists, and there are religious people who don’t think evolution is the devil’s work.
But when fundamentalists start to equal faith with facts we have a problem – aka the absurdity of equalling evolution with Creation.
“and that is where the ultimate argument comes to a screeching halt with no answer, as those who do not belive cannot prove it to be false and those who do belive can only prove it so with their own faith.”
Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Something is not proven true, simply because it cannot be proven to be false.
And in the case of something EXISTING (as in God) the burden of proof rests solely on those making a positive assertion. You cannot prove the non-existence of a thing.
Jnolan you know that proofing that someone named jesus existed doesn't have anbything to do with the existance of god. And clickclick couldn't you stop picking on people whos first language isn't english? I mean that is just childish especially since it is clear what finti mean. Why giving him a hard time? Your could surely wouldn't appreciate it.
What Clickclick is doing is called "Argumentum ad hominem", argument directed at the man, not his point. A common logic fallacy among bad debaters.
If only. I was simply pointing out that what he wrote was different from his intention, I was not debating him.
Why giving him a hard time? Your could surely wouldn't appreciate it.
Im sure it was nothing unwarranted. It would be helpful anyway.