Quote:

---

This seems a paradox to me. Why this strange addiction of God believers to science? Is their belief so weak that they need some external confirmation?

---

Quote:

---

Science measures temperatures by the presence of heat, or the absence of it.

Does this mean that cold does not exist?

---

You probably meant 'can we measure cold?', because if there's no heat, then basically there's cold whatever the amount of it, so it does exist. Think about the things that are so extremely cold that touching them will make your hands burn, I doubt we could measure heat on that particular substance or object, yet why does it burn?

@ICEman; The tree you are talking about was what I meant with 'out of sight' so to speak, so if I got lucky and catched it with my head, then that last split second I knew the tree existed anyway. Okey, I'd admit, I'd probably wouldn't be so happy about finding that out .

Cheers

Quote:

---

is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization... a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself... If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts.

---

Quote:

---

therefore the need to invent new "scientific theories" so that their beleif system doesn't fall down around them. They cannot have faith in something that cannot be scientifically proven because they know the results of science for fact.

---

Quote:

---

PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST:Existing means: actually being in some space, occupying some exact space coordinates, settleing upon certain space (else you do not exist by definition).
Everything that exist is somewhere, not nowhere; and being "somewhere" implyes "location" - e.i. existance of something that is "space"

---

What exactly can we present that says he doesnt or didnt physically exist somewhere? We only know the contents of .000001 percent of the universe..and I am probably being generous. We have never done archeological digs on any other planet, we havent fully explored our own.. Physical nonexistance before our very eyes is a very limited piece of evidence .

By this same logic, Aliens dont exist either... Drake's equation, tho, says that not only do they.. but some of them are as smart as us, and some are moreso. I consider that more of an educated guess than fact, but its still taking a less opinion driven approach than "It not real because I've never seen it".

OK..supposing there was space first.. Say something did create him..(tho I would imagine this inquiry would come AFTER we discover something concrete and noncircumstantial..say a body...or a spent old being studying in an alien temple somewhere..) what says he didnt like all the darkness and decided to create everything else to fill it out?

As the dominant species of this planet, dont we use our intelligence to create...and was not earth here before us? Did not something create us? Perhaps God is not so differently originated. You are treating God by one narrow definition, which is why I do understand how you can think it not possible to just spring forth from nothingness.. but what if something did make or reproduce him, her, it? Then what? Is he still capable of using his life to learn all of math and all of science, and doing something beyond all imagination with it at the end of it? Or is he incapable of being the creator we call "God" because he is not what we expect?

I dont treat "God" as a magical, magnanymous being. I treat it as a being who developed his great power thru knowledge, which are synonymous once you achieve enough.

@Nitro...

The only way that religious science ever seems to be able to make points is by correlating happy coincidences.

Lemme take a realistic stab at some of those tho:

AIDS is most prevalant in the countries that is was introduced to, because it was introduced there... suddenly, and without antidote. It used to be that if you ate or got scratched by monkeys with SIV..you were among the first to get HIV, the SIV mutation for humans. This did not involve sin.

There was homosexuality before there was AIDS. Heterosexuals with inability to be responsible and disciplined make up the larger demographic of AIDS. This is not the result of sinning as much as it is...irresponsibility.

Whether you sin or not...if you fail to check if your partner has AIDS before you have sex with them, if you dont ask your doctors if they have it before you let them operate inside your body, there's a failry good chance you will get it.

Christians didnt "discover" the world was round.. most other societies around the world knew this for thousands of years. They're just the only ones who refused to believe it and " discovered" it for themselves.

@fastlane

I really dont appreciate the disharmony between fact and faith that we have so much of.. but uh..is this what taoism teaches..harmony between the two?.. Perhaps I should study the faith.

Quote:

---

The undeniable correlation is in demographics. Is it a coincidence that America is the most priviledged country on earth? Or does it correlate with us having the largest percentage of evangelicals on earth?

---