Religious Discussion [Enter at ye own Peril]

[JohnK]

But it has been happening. Rather than just sticking to and stating your beliefs, you have repeatedly told us scientific facts are wrong; you have misrepresented and misquoted science derived conclusions and generally trashed science and scientists. You have been told how insulting this is to us, but you continued to do trot it out. Its only when asked to back up your 'science' assertions that we get the 'I'm a simple person' line.

Oh dear RooFlyer.

I think I'm able to criticise science and scientific theories all I like. I don't need to be an "expert". Apologies if you find that offensive and insulting.

Some of the posters in this thread have only entered the discussion to post cheap shots on my opinion. They do that all the time. It is extremely insulting but I have learnt to ignore them because they have no idea. They think they are right.

I don't believe the big bang or evolution as described by evolutionary biologists is the way life started in our universe. A single cell organism with the blueprint for millions of species is not a believable explanation. Life is very complex. Too many random events needed to align in exactly the same order for the above to be true. Something had to create that single cell organism with the instructions of what to do.

I don't need to have any scientific knowledge to make my assumption. That insults you? It's not meant to be insulting and I don't understand why you take it that way.

As for our Creator. I have no desire to understand who/what created them as I struggle to understand the laws of our universe.

TheRealTMA was right. It's not possible to discuss the origins of our universe in public.

 

[ermen]

You lost me with your first sentence.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Vic]

Strongly held opinion as a scientific philosophy?
There could be a PhD in that.
There could be a whole chapter on the arrogance of anyone who dares to present evidence that disproves the opinion. Then another chapter on how evidence is not required to form an opinion.
Then there is the chapter outlining how a strongly held opinion based on misunderstanding evidence based scientific theories cannot possibly be wrong. A special case study could be on the opinion that a single cell organism needs to contain the blueprint for a million species when evolution does not have that requirement.

It'd be like a PhD on a new religion.

 

[TomVexille]

Oh dear RooFlyer.

I think I'm able to criticise science and scientific theories all I like. I don't need to be an "expert". Apologies if you find that offensive and insulting.

Some of the posters in this thread have only entered the discussion to post cheap shots on my opinion. They do that all the time. It is extremely insulting but I have learnt to ignore them because they have no idea. They think they are right.

I don't believe the big bang or evolution as described by evolutionary biologists is the way life started in our universe. A single cell organism with the blueprint for millions of species is not a believable explanation. Life is very complex. Too many random events needed to align in exactly the same order for the above to be true. Something had to create that single cell organism with the instructions of what to do.

I don't need to have any scientific knowledge to make my assumption. That insults you? It's not meant to be insulting and I don't understand why you take it that way.

As for our Creator. I have no desire to understand who/what created them as I struggle to understand the laws of our universe.

TheRealTMA was right. It's not possible to discuss the origins of our universe in public.

Cheap shots eh? Like the time you walked out on your bill and bragged about it? Or the time you insulted my partner repeatedly to my face? That's a cheap shot. You swan around insulting people regularly and then retreat behind the "I'm allowed my opinion" line. So you're going to get called on it.

At the end of the day, as you have repeated many times, you are not an expert, and you have yet to put forward any reasoned argument. Unlike pretty much everyone else.

 

[BacchusMarsh]

Contrarian debating is one thing. Being a repeated moron is another.

Why is there even any reference to passive-aggressiveness in the T&Cs when the number-one poster is basically nothing else?

It's all about the clicks, babies.

 

[Pushka]

Care to elaborate?

That god created the universe.

 

[burmans]

Oh dear RooFlyer.

I think I'm able to criticise science and scientific theories all I like. I don't need to be an "expert". Apologies if you find that offensive and insulting.

Some of the posters in this thread have only entered the discussion to post cheap shots on my opinion. They do that all the time. It is extremely insulting but I have learnt to ignore them because they have no idea. They think they are right.

I don't believe the big bang or evolution as described by evolutionary biologists is the way life started in our universe. A single cell organism with the blueprint for millions of species is not a believable explanation. Life is very complex. Too many random events needed to align in exactly the same order for the above to be true. Something had to create that single cell organism with the instructions of what to do.

I don't need to have any scientific knowledge to make my assumption. That insults you? It's not meant to be insulting and I don't understand why you take it that way.

As for our Creator. I have no desire to understand who/what created them as I struggle to understand the laws of our universe.

TheRealTMA was right. It's not possible to discuss the origins of our universe in public.

Contrarian debating is one thing. Being a repeated moron is another.

Why is there even any reference to passive-aggressiveness in the T&Cs when the number-one poster is basically nothing else?

It's all about the clicks, babies.

I really don't see why you guys are interested in debating with JohnK, he's made quite clear that he values belief over scientific requirements of evidence or knowledge. Indeed in my view, in some cases he seems to have an attitude of determined and deliberate ignorance of some of the science, i.e. he doesn't know and doesn't want to know.

Any attempt to have a rational debate on the science is therefore doomed to fail. Why I might find it extremely difficult to understand how someone can be do deliberately ignorant, it is his right to be so. In regards to this thread I find his contribution as nothing less than trolling, in that he seems to want to bait people but then not engage in serious debate. Personally I think we should rise above this by refusing to engage with such trolling, much as I agree with some of the commentary it's going nowhere, you can't have a rational argument with someone who doesn't have a desire to act rationally.

 

[ermen]

That god created the universe.

Think that theblank was saying that is a perfect rational and logical basis to begin with, based on the Kalam cosmological argument (which I touched on above in a previous thread)

 

[Vic]

there's another chapter for the PhD, scientific theories are defacto facts to be accepted or rejected according to opinion without considered the measured evidence.

Think that theblank was saying that is a perfect rational and logical basis to begin with, based on the Kalam cosmological argument (which I touched on above in a previous thread)

The problem is that beginning with God created the universe is Axiomatic. It is an untested assumption that puts limits on scientific investigation. As I mentioned Axioms are only really used in maths and logic. So yes that might be a logical basis, but is it not scientifically rational.

 

[ermen]

The problem is that beginning with God created the universe is Axiomatic. It is an untested assumption that puts limits on scientific investigation. As I mentioned Axioms are only really used in maths and logic. So yes that might be a logical basis, but is it not scientifically rational.

Good point you raised but i disagree with the statement that such an axiom puts limits on scientific investigation (if it can even be called an axiom because such a statement was a logical conclusion of the Kalam argument). As you say, if science is does not depend on axioms, then having such an axiom (or the counter belief that "there is no God") should not and will not interfere with any valid scientific conclusion.

At the end, I think that science is concerned with time, space and matter. The issue of God transcends time, space and matter. So they are in my mind, two separate disciplines.

 

[ozjuice]

https://youtu.be/rYnjDCZUV6A [video=youtube_share;rYnjDCZUV6A]https://youtu.be/rYnjDCZUV6A[/video]

Makes a lot of sense to me.....

 

[straitman]

No, you have a tendency to defend someone who has been incredibly rude to other forum members in person.

I am not defending anybody but I am defending their right to have an opinion without being howled down for holding that opinion.

What ever happened on another occasion and in person is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Warks]

This will not end well...

(comment for the first page of this thread, I came in late)

 

[Vic]

Good point you raised but i disagree with the statement that such an axiom puts limits on scientific investigation. As you say, if science is does not depend on axioms, then having such an axiom (or the counter belief that "there is no God") should not and will not interfere with any valid scientific conclusion.

At the end, I think that science is concerned with time, space and matter. The issue of God transcends time, space and matter. So they are in my mind, two separate disciplines.

I most assuredly agree that the question of god is separate to the scientific study of the universe.

but an axiom is a statement that is taken to be true. Starting from the point that God exists (or doesn't) as a truth excludes the possibility that god does not exist (or does). That places a limit on the scientific investigation, you've removed any theory that involves God not existing, regardless of the evidence supporting that the theory.

This is all a followup to the suggestion that Brian Cox has axiomatically excluded the possibility that god exist as part of his scientific studies. I don't agree with that suggestion because, as you point out, his scientific work is independent of the existence of God. It is not even clear that Cox is an atheist, in any case.

 

[Vic]

I am not defending anybody but I am defending their right to have an opinion without being howled down for holding that opinion.

What ever happened on another occasion and in person is irrelevant to this discussion.

And the right for people to consider that opinion and then express an opinion that it is wrong without having to suffer passive aggressive retorts?

 

[juddles]

I really think this thread should be closed, as it will no doubt cause more harm than it is worth. I understand the ideal that any sort of thing could be discussed under the guise of the "playground", but in reality it does not work. Discussions that should be forbidden include, IMHO, such ones as Israel vs Palestine, India vs Pakistan, religion, and pure Merlot wine consumption by ostensibly "straight" men. These will always end in pain.

 

[ermen]

i think most are going along fine here
as long as you avoid ad hominem attacks...

 

[admin]

Time to close this thread. Nothing to gain in circular discussions in a controversial topic which has nothing to do with Travel!