TexasScientist said:

---

You mean the 70 or so, so called Church verified miracles out of the thousands of anecdotal sketchy claims of healings. None require miraculous explanation. Why are there no obvious miracles, such as regrowing a limb or raising the indisputable dead?

---

No, out of the thousands of "anecdotal sketchy claims of healings", 70 have been independently reviewed and approved authentic miracles having no natural explanation. The other healings reported are actual healings, but the Church did not investigate them or declare them a miracle.

Just ONE miracle is enough refute the atheist's/agnostic's claim. 70 of them exist in this one spot.

TexasScientist said:

---

Your definition of nothing may not be applicable in quantum mechanics.

---

Quantum means small, at the atomic level. Atoms are still NOT nothing. No matter how much you want to believe it.

TexasScientist said:

---

Science is in the business of closing the gaps by replacing the superstition, and myths of religion with knowledge. That is something no religion has been able to replicate.

---

I can't find any superstitions in Christianity nor can I find myths.

Catholicism isn't at odds with Science. It embraces it. Many of the world's greatest scientists were Christian.

Speaking myths and theories ... String theory was all the rage about 20 years ago, but now that has fallen out of favor with many. Maybe science may have more in common with religion that you care to believe.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TX Scientist, you, as well your friends here, have still yet to provide their BEST example of a scientific fact or knowledge we know today that disproves a God or Christianity, despite my challenge to you all to do so. The others scurried away at the challenge, and we've not heard from them since. You're here repeating the claim that what we know today debunks the truth of Christianity (despite this having been defeated repeatedly), so why not take another shot here? Just one example, your BEST one, so that you don't go into a long diatribe. And we can focus like a laser beam on just that one for the purpose of discussion.

---

Preponderance of the evidence. No god is needed to explain existence of the universe. BTW - Your delusion doesn't equate to my defeat.

---

Re: (bolded part above) - Therefore God does not exist? It does not follow. It would be like a situation where a person builds a house of cards and you come across it when no one is there, and you argue that it is theoretically possible for the house of cards to have formed when a deck of cards fell and landed in that shape; therefore, since it is possible to explain its existence without a person making it, the person who made it doesn't exist. Logical fail.

Give one example of evidence, your BEST one, that is part of the "preponderance of evidence". You're just dodging.

---

There is no best one. There are numerous, including no evidence. Certainly, the character written in the various stories collected in the Bible does not exist. That character often described as all loving, all knowing, all powerful is incompatible with his alleged actions, and the universe. Consider the fact that people are insignificant in the scope of the universe as is this planet.

---

I can absolutely be seen as insignificant and yet, Christ died for me. He also died for you but you seem to struggle with humility and realizing that you actually need a savior.

---

All religions, including Christianity, think they have a corner on being right. Why would a Christian god ignore all of the other religions in favor a special version of belief by less than all believers, in an inconsequential life form on an inconsequential planet in the universe? Why would he have caused a scenario that required a savior, if he is a loving god? And why would he use the ubiquitous primitive belief in a blood sacrifice to curry a god's favor? Blood sacrifice is an old primitive religious concept.

Question? Do you believe all Hominids needed a savior, or just humans?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

"The argument on the basis of design, though trite, has never been adequately refuted. On the contrary, as we learn more about our world, the probability of its having resulted by chance processes becomes more and more remote, so that few indeed are the scientific men of today who will defend an atheistic attitude."

Arthur Compton, Nobel Prize-winning physicist

---

"As you learn more about the irrelevance of human life to the general mechanism of the universe, the idea of an interested god, becomes increasingly implausible."

"It's a consequence of the experience of science. As you learn more and more about the universe, you find you can understand more and more without any reference to supernatural intervention, so you lose interest in that possibility. Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists. And that, I think, is one of the great things about science - that it has made it possible for people not to be religious."

Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate in physics

---

"But the context of religion is a great background for doing science. In the words of Psalm 19,
'The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork' Thus scientific research is a worshipful act, in that it reveals more of the wonders of God's creation."

Arthur Schawlow, Nobel Laureate in Physics

---

Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33

Leading scientists still reject God
https://www.nature.com/articles/28478

Religion among Scientists in International Context: A New Study of Scientists in Eight Regions
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2378023116664353

---

Is this what science has come down to today, a majority say x and a minority y so it has to be x? Science has grown by taking the exact opposite position you are taking.

---

No, we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. The scientific method to understanding physical laws doesn't change. Only our understanding of those physical laws can improve. As that understanding improves, the less need there is for any primitive or contemporary religious explanation of anything. Science imparts knowledge about the physics of nature.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

A Woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one is turning a back to God because you don't even know of there is a personal God. Why people hang on to belief systems created when people were totally uneducated about the world and how it works and how we got here and where we stand in perspective to the whole universe. There is no way a belief system like Christianity or Muslim etc could be created in today's environment of richness of knowledge.

Those human beings that created their belief systems based on their worldly experience and the religion beliefs that came before them. They are all culturally created systems not God made. I agree there seems to be a higher power that may have put all this in motion however as I have said before all of man's religions fall so ridiculously short of a God who could have created the universe.

It is hard to overcome brainwashing started at young ages. RELIGION has thrive on teaching brains these absurd superstitious beliefs like the p
romise of eternal life and a god watching over and protecting you each and every moment of your life. There is overwhelimg evidence today that none of that is true and most likely when you die you die like all the ancestors mankind came from did.

Sin is a man-made idea that helped control the masses and created guilt so churches had power to punish, burn and eliminate any belief system that differed from their own. There was never an Adam and eve and like the rest
Of the so called man in God's form from the other various belief systems, Jesus was just a man.

---

Congratulations, you might have just broken the sicem365 record for the most nonsense written in a single post. Previously held by JB Katz, I think. TXScience and Waco47 were very close contenders.

---

Not near the nonsense of a man made imaginary friend.

---

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. I hope, TexasScientist, that you too can find joy in your life.

---

Thank you, but I don't have to find joy. I already have it.

---

Odd. I don't see it in your posts.

---

I wonder if that has anything to do with your posts?

---

Nope, if you mean are you controlled by me in what you say. Although you may well be using my posts to excuse your own rudeness.

---

No, you have the corner on rudeness.

---

Again, judging from your posts that's absolutely not true. And there are many fine purveyors of rudeness, arrogance, bitterness and/or spite.

My occasional contribution is ordinary and passe next to your hard-spit efforts, TS.

---

You need to learn to look inward. You'll see much more clearly if you do.

---

You need to learn from these exchanges. Have a great Monday, TS.

---

You just can't help yourself, can you? Example ^^^^^ Almost everything you write, or post has overtones of rudeness.

---

It's "rudeness" to wish you a good day, after suggesting you could learn from the exchange?

I think you project things which are not there, sir.

---

Yes, the whole sentence is snarky, just the way you like - as you know.

---

Odd. You see things which are not there ... which is exactly what you claim about Christians.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

joseywales said:

---

A Woman has a right to do with her body as she pleases, no one is turning a back to God because you don't even know of there is a personal God. Why people hang on to belief systems created when people were totally uneducated about the world and how it works and how we got here and where we stand in perspective to the whole universe. There is no way a belief system like Christianity or Muslim etc could be created in today's environment of richness of knowledge.

Those human beings that created their belief systems based on their worldly experience and the religion beliefs that came before them. They are all culturally created systems not God made. I agree there seems to be a higher power that may have put all this in motion however as I have said before all of man's religions fall so ridiculously short of a God who could have created the universe.

It is hard to overcome brainwashing started at young ages. RELIGION has thrive on teaching brains these absurd superstitious beliefs like the p
romise of eternal life and a god watching over and protecting you each and every moment of your life. There is overwhelimg evidence today that none of that is true and most likely when you die you die like all the ancestors mankind came from did.

Sin is a man-made idea that helped control the masses and created guilt so churches had power to punish, burn and eliminate any belief system that differed from their own. There was never an Adam and eve and like the rest
Of the so called man in God's form from the other various belief systems, Jesus was just a man.

---

Congratulations, you might have just broken the sicem365 record for the most nonsense written in a single post. Previously held by JB Katz, I think. TXScience and Waco47 were very close contenders.

---

Not near the nonsense of a man made imaginary friend.

---

I have much to be thankful for this Thanksgiving. I hope, TexasScientist, that you too can find joy in your life.

---

Thank you, but I don't have to find joy. I already have it.

---

Odd. I don't see it in your posts.

---

I wonder if that has anything to do with your posts?

---

Nope, if you mean are you controlled by me in what you say. Although you may well be using my posts to excuse your own rudeness.

---

No, you have the corner on rudeness.

---

Again, judging from your posts that's absolutely not true. And there are many fine purveyors of rudeness, arrogance, bitterness and/or spite.

My occasional contribution is ordinary and passe next to your hard-spit efforts, TS.

---

You need to learn to look inward. You'll see much more clearly if you do.

---

Look inward? Do other conglomerations of matter look inward? How? Why?

---

Possibly. It's a vast universe. In the case of humans, we have comparatively highly evolved cognitive brains. How - Physical processes of evolution. Why - There is no overarching or controlling purpose.

---

Possible, like that house of cards?

---

Possible, like there probably are other life forms capable. It's a big universe.

TexasScientist said:

---

Possible, like there probably are other life forms capable. It's a big universe.

---

Fermi Paradox?

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

It's pretty good evidence when you have a religion that claims god intervenes supernaturally without any evidence. If there were supernatural intervention in accordance with his stated purpose and objectives, there would be objective evidence.

---

You refuse to accept the 70+ miracles at Lourdes that have been independently medically verified. Plenty of evidence there.

Just one miracle is proof of the supernatural.

TexasScientist said:

---

We have the evidence of reality. We have plausible evidence and explanation for the existence of the universe without the need for any supernatural being, especially the ones who are characterized in the stories of the Bible. Where is your evidence and explanation for the existence of any supernatural being, especially the ones characterized in the Bible stories?

---

No, science still does NOT have "plausible evidence and explanation" of a creation ex nihilo. A quantum vacuum is NOT nothing.

Any thing at this point is still Science of the Gaps.

---

You mean the 70 or so, so called Church verified miracles out of the thousands of anecdotal sketchy claims of healings. None require miraculous explanation. Why are there no obvious miracles, such as regrowing a limb or raising the indisputable dead?

Your definition of nothing may not be applicable in quantum mechanics.

Science is in the business of closing the gaps by replacing the superstition, and myths of religion with knowledge. That is something no religion has been able to replicate.

---

"Science is in the business of closing the gaps by replacing the superstition, and myths of religion with knowledge."

Why does your working definition of science include the words myths and religion?

You shout about your agenda more than you do your actual job…. and your too blind to see that!!! How much more buffoonish can you get? (rhetorical, not a challenge)

I've read no other definition of science that comes remotely close to yours.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TX Scientist, you, as well your friends here, have still yet to provide their BEST example of a scientific fact or knowledge we know today that disproves a God or Christianity, despite my challenge to you all to do so. The others scurried away at the challenge, and we've not heard from them since. You're here repeating the claim that what we know today debunks the truth of Christianity (despite this having been defeated repeatedly), so why not take another shot here? Just one example, your BEST one, so that you don't go into a long diatribe. And we can focus like a laser beam on just that one for the purpose of discussion.

---

Preponderance of the evidence. No god is needed to explain existence of the universe. BTW - Your delusion doesn't equate to my defeat.

---

Re: (bolded part above) - Therefore God does not exist? It does not follow. It would be like a situation where a person builds a house of cards and you come across it when no one is there, and you argue that it is theoretically possible for the house of cards to have formed when a deck of cards fell and landed in that shape; therefore, since it is possible to explain its existence without a person making it, the person who made it doesn't exist. Logical fail.

Give one example of evidence, your BEST one, that is part of the "preponderance of evidence". You're just dodging.

---

Absence of any evidence of existence outside of the human mind. Where is your evidence of a god's existence?

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Another logical fail.

Don't turn this around on me. YOU repeatedly claim that knowledge we have today debunks God's existence. And as always, you are completely unable to back it up.

So it's no "delusion" that you've been defeated. The reality is evidenced right here.

---

It's pretty good evidence when you have a religion that claims god intervenes supernaturally without any evidence. If there were supernatural intervention in accordance with his stated purpose and objectives, there would be objective evidence.

We have the evidence of reality. We have plausible evidence and explanation for the existence of the universe without the need for any supernatural being, especially the ones who are characterized in the stories of the Bible. Where is your evidence and explanation for the existence of any supernatural being, especially the ones characterized in the Bible stories?

---

You've not produced one bit of evidence that debunks God's existence or the truth of Christianity.

And you're just not smart enough to realize that.

---

The evidence is that we find ourselves inconsequentially in this vast universe, without the need for any supernatural shenanigans. The 'truth' of Christianity is internally falsified by its own internal inconsistencies. Otherwise, you wouldn't need the excuses of apologetics.

Which version Christianity do you think represents the the truth of Christianity? Why is there so much confusion about that? If there were a Christian god, wouldn't he make that clear, and wouldn't he clear up the question about other religions also?

It's not a matter of being smart, for someone. Rather, it's about coming to grips, being honest with one's self, and acknowledging religious self delusion.

---

All assertions, faulty assumptions, and opinions. Still no proof. Still recycling old, defeated talking points.

You have nothing, and you know it, so you continue to bit** and moan and shake your fist at something you say doesn't exist.

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TX Scientist, you, as well your friends here, have still yet to provide their BEST example of a scientific fact or knowledge we know today that disproves a God or Christianity, despite my challenge to you all to do so. The others scurried away at the challenge, and we've not heard from them since. You're here repeating the claim that what we know today debunks the truth of Christianity (despite this having been defeated repeatedly), so why not take another shot here? Just one example, your BEST one, so that you don't go into a long diatribe. And we can focus like a laser beam on just that one for the purpose of discussion.

---

Preponderance of the evidence. No god is needed to explain existence of the universe. BTW - Your delusion doesn't equate to my defeat.

---

Re: (bolded part above) - Therefore God does not exist? It does not follow. It would be like a situation where a person builds a house of cards and you come across it when no one is there, and you argue that it is theoretically possible for the house of cards to have formed when a deck of cards fell and landed in that shape; therefore, since it is possible to explain its existence without a person making it, the person who made it doesn't exist. Logical fail.

Give one example of evidence, your BEST one, that is part of the "preponderance of evidence". You're just dodging.

---

There is no best one. There are numerous, including no evidence. Certainly, the character written in the various stories collected in the Bible does not exist. That character often described as all loving, all knowing, all powerful is incompatible with his alleged actions, and the universe. Consider the fact that people are insignificant in the scope of the universe as is this planet.

---

I can absolutely be seen as insignificant and yet, Christ died for me. He also died for you but you seem to struggle with humility and realizing that you actually need a savior.

---

All religions, including Christianity, think they have a corner on being right. Why would a Christian god ignore all of the other religions in favor a special version of belief by less than all believers, in an inconsequential life form on an inconsequential planet in the universe? Why would he have caused a scenario that required a savior, if he is a loving god? And why would he use the ubiquitous primitive belief in a blood sacrifice to curry a god's favor? Blood sacrifice is an old primitive religious concept.

Question? Do you believe all Homo Sapiens needed a savior, or just humans?

---

All of your questions come down to "why did God give us free will? Why didn't He just make us marionettes incapable of making choices?"

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

It's pretty good evidence when you have a religion that claims god intervenes supernaturally without any evidence. If there were supernatural intervention in accordance with his stated purpose and objectives, there would be objective evidence.

---

You refuse to accept the 70+ miracles at Lourdes that have been independently medically verified. Plenty of evidence there.

Just one miracle is proof of the supernatural.

TexasScientist said:

---

We have the evidence of reality. We have plausible evidence and explanation for the existence of the universe without the need for any supernatural being, especially the ones who are characterized in the stories of the Bible. Where is your evidence and explanation for the existence of any supernatural being, especially the ones characterized in the Bible stories?

---

No, science still does NOT have "plausible evidence and explanation" of a creation ex nihilo. A quantum vacuum is NOT nothing.

Any thing at this point is still Science of the Gaps.

---

You mean the 70 or so, so called Church verified miracles out of the thousands of anecdotal sketchy claims of healings. None require miraculous explanation. Why are there no obvious miracles, such as regrowing a limb or raising the indisputable dead?

Your definition of nothing may not be applicable in quantum mechanics.

Science is in the business of closing the gaps by replacing the superstition, and myths of religion with knowledge. That is something no religion has been able to replicate.

---

"Science is in the business of closing the gaps by replacing the superstition, and myths of religion with knowledge."

Why does your working definition of science include the words myths and religion?

You shout about your agenda more than you do your actual job…. and your too blind to see that!!! How much more buffoonish can you get? (rhetorical, not a challenge)

I've read no other definition of science that comes remotely close to yours.

---

I didn't define science or offer a definition for you. I've given you my opinion about the one of the consequences, results, or benefits of science.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

TS: "Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known"

False. As I documented, when something becomes popular with Scientists, they not only will ignore facts which don't fit their opinion, they will personally attack individuals who dare to challenge them.

Years, even decades may pass before the false claims are slowly corrected.

As Michael Crichton observed, modern Science is not following the famous Scientific Method, it is selling a product.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TX Scientist, you, as well your friends here, have still yet to provide their BEST example of a scientific fact or knowledge we know today that disproves a God or Christianity, despite my challenge to you all to do so. The others scurried away at the challenge, and we've not heard from them since. You're here repeating the claim that what we know today debunks the truth of Christianity (despite this having been defeated repeatedly), so why not take another shot here? Just one example, your BEST one, so that you don't go into a long diatribe. And we can focus like a laser beam on just that one for the purpose of discussion.

---

Preponderance of the evidence. No god is needed to explain existence of the universe. BTW - Your delusion doesn't equate to my defeat.

---

Re: (bolded part above) - Therefore God does not exist? It does not follow. It would be like a situation where a person builds a house of cards and you come across it when no one is there, and you argue that it is theoretically possible for the house of cards to have formed when a deck of cards fell and landed in that shape; therefore, since it is possible to explain its existence without a person making it, the person who made it doesn't exist. Logical fail.

Give one example of evidence, your BEST one, that is part of the "preponderance of evidence". You're just dodging.

---

There is no best one. There are numerous, including no evidence. Certainly, the character written in the various stories collected in the Bible does not exist. That character often described as all loving, all knowing, all powerful is incompatible with his alleged actions, and the universe. Consider the fact that people are insignificant in the scope of the universe as is this planet.

---

I can absolutely be seen as insignificant and yet, Christ died for me. He also died for you but you seem to struggle with humility and realizing that you actually need a savior.

---

All religions, including Christianity, think they have a corner on being right. Why would a Christian god ignore all of the other religions in favor a special version of belief by less than all believers, in an inconsequential life form on an inconsequential planet in the universe? Why would he have caused a scenario that required a savior, if he is a loving god? And why would he use the ubiquitous primitive belief in a blood sacrifice to curry a god's favor? Blood sacrifice is an old primitive religious concept.

Question? Do you believe all Hominids needed a savior, or just humans?

---

All of your questions come down to "why did God give us free will? Why didn't He just make us marionettes incapable of making choices?"

---

Ability to make a choice is a product of evolution. Humans are not the only species with some ability to choose.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

You mean the 70 or so, so called Church verified miracles out of the thousands of anecdotal sketchy claims of healings. None require miraculous explanation. Why are there no obvious miracles, such as regrowing a limb or raising the indisputable dead?

---

No, out of the thousands of "anecdotal sketchy claims of healings", 70 have been independently reviewed and approved authentic miracles having no natural explanation. The other healings reported are actual healings, but the Church did not investigate them or declare them a miracle.

Just ONE miracle is enough refute the atheist's/agnostic's claim. 70 of them exist in this one spot.

Approved by who, and who appointed them? They're all anecdotal.

TexasScientist said:

---

Your definition of nothing may not be applicable in quantum mechanics.

---

Quantum means small, at the atomic level. Atoms are still NOT nothing. No matter how much you want to believe it.

You can remove everything from space - all matter, atoms, and radiation from space until you have a vacuum (nothing), and sub atomic particles come in and out of existence for an extremely minute fraction of a second.

TexasScientist said:

---

Science is in the business of closing the gaps by replacing the superstition, and myths of religion with knowledge. That is something no religion has been able to replicate.

---

I can't find any superstitions in Christianity nor can I find myths. How about these: Superstition -Your activity or thoughts determines whether you spend time in purgatory, or eternity in heaven or hell. Myth - Resurrection.

Catholicism isn't at odds with Science. It embraces it. Many of the world's greatest scientists were Christian. Reluctantly when faced with not other choice. Example - The Church's treatment of Galileo. Now it claims he was a "scientist for the Church." I will acknowledge that the Catholic Church has changed its beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. In some instances it has supported scientific investigation, in others it has resisted.

Speaking myths and theories ... String theory was all the rage about 20 years ago, but now that has fallen out of favor with many. Maybe science may have more in common with religion that you care to believe.

Myths are not the same as scientific hypothesis, theories or concepts. String theory had some promise, but so far it hasn't produced anything of substance and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. That said, it may yet provide answers to some questions. Time will tell.

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

he's the Kevin Steele of reason and logic

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

---

You can demonstrate mathematically the formation of a house of cards by gravity and chance. That's far more than you can say about it having been created by a person.

See how stupid that sounds?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

---

You can demonstrate mathematically the formation of a house of cards by gravity and chance. That's far more than you can say about it having been created by a person.

See how stupid that sounds?

---

Mathematics also demonstrates the near impossible conditions required for life to develop. Cool how mathematics doesn't choose sides

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

---

You can demonstrate mathematically the formation of a house of cards by gravity and chance. That's far more than you can say about it having been created by a person.

See how stupid that sounds?

---

Mathematics also demonstrates the near impossible conditions required for life to develop. Cool how mathematics doesn't choose sides

---

You can win 100 hands of blackjack in a row and argue it is mathematically possible, so it's legit. But no one's gonna buy it, and the casino will throw your ass outta there.

Funny how "plausible" the mathematics become when you desperately need it to be.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

---

You can demonstrate mathematically the formation of a house of cards by gravity and chance. That's far more than you can say about it having been created by a person.

See how stupid that sounds?

---

Mathematics also demonstrates the near impossible conditions required for life to develop. Cool how mathematics doesn't choose sides

---

You can win 100 hands of blackjack in a row and argue it is mathematically possible, so it's legit. But no one's gonna buy it, and the casino will throw your ass outta there.

Funny how "plausible" the mathematics become when you desperately need it to be.

---

There is a difference in demonstrating how something comes about mathematically, and assigning in mathematical probabilities as you're talking about.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

---

You can demonstrate mathematically the formation of a house of cards by gravity and chance. That's far more than you can say about it having been created by a person.

See how stupid that sounds?

---

Mathematics also demonstrates the near impossible conditions required for life to develop. Cool how mathematics doesn't choose sides

---

You can win 100 hands of blackjack in a row and argue it is mathematically possible, so it's legit. But no one's gonna buy it, and the casino will throw your ass outta there.

Funny how "plausible" the mathematics become when you desperately need it to be.

---

There is a difference in demonstrating how something comes about mathematically, and assigning in mathematical probabilities as you're talking about.

---

You mean like the prophecies of Jesus Christ first coming? Great analogy.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

---

You can demonstrate mathematically the formation of a house of cards by gravity and chance. That's far more than you can say about it having been created by a person.

See how stupid that sounds?

---

Mathematics also demonstrates the near impossible conditions required for life to develop. Cool how mathematics doesn't choose sides

---

You can win 100 hands of blackjack in a row and argue it is mathematically possible, so it's legit. But no one's gonna buy it, and the casino will throw your ass outta there.

Funny how "plausible" the mathematics become when you desperately need it to be.

---

There is a difference in demonstrating how something comes about mathematically, and assigning in mathematical probabilities as you're talking about.

---

Nothing comes about mathematically. Math doesn't bring things into existence.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: " we're talking about the opinion of most scientists. "

Ahem.

The scientific method has never relied on popularity.

And you might want to consider these occasions:

1. Most people believed the Earth was hollow in the past. Not only philosophers who created theories of an underworld, but many Greek and Roman scientists.

2. Most scientists believed dinosaurs were scaly until very recently.

3. As recently as 1850, most dentists believed tiny worms were responsible for tooth cavities, not plaque.

4. Most scientists in the 20th Century regarded Pluto as a planet. Now most do not.

5. Most scientists believed modern man evolved from Neanderthals. We now know Homo-sapiens and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and while there was some interbreeding, Neanderthals were not our progenitors.

6.In 1998, the British medical journal The Lancet published a peer-reviewed study which concluded the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine can cause autism. By the time that blunder was corrected, the Anti-Vax movement was in full speed.

7. For most of the 20th century, doctors told patients with stomach ulcers that stress was the cause. That only changed when Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that helicobacter pylori was the actual cause, in 1984.

8. Most geologists mocked and derided Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. Only a half-century later did plate tectonics prove the consensus was wrong.

9. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no.

10. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

Shall I go on? I can ...

---

Exactly my point. When presented with the evidence of reality, modern science fills in the gaps of the unknown with what becomes known. Religion fills those gaps with the supernatural, until it has no choice but to accept the obvious. None of those questions were answered by prayer, or Devine revelation. Knowledge comes slowly, but surely through the scientific method.

---

Yet, equipped with all your modern science, you utterly failed to produce even a single piece of evidence that debunks the truth of Christianity and Jesus when challenged to do so. So do you think more scientific gap filling is gonna do the trick?

David Berlinski (an agnostic) in his book The Devil's Delusion, sums it up well:

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.

---

Quote:

---

• Has anyone provided a proof of God's exsistence? Not even close.
• Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. We have plausible explanations now. Given enough time, we'll have an answer.
• Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Through evolution, life is fined tuned to the environment - not the other way around. There is only how, not why.
• Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. They believe in what is revealed by the evidence of reality to be highly probable through the scientific method.
• Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. We have a far better approach to morality through a humanistic approach, than selectively following primitive peoples unfounded reasoning and beliefs.
• Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close. Secularism (separation of church from state) is what affords you the freedom to choose your religion.Theocracy as an alternative can be responsible for the most horrendous atrocities and suppression i.e. Iran, Afghanistan, Spanish Inquisition. Do you want to live under someone's interpretation of religious tenets?
• Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences? Close enough. Orthodoxy is someone's claim of being right. Everything else is heterodoxy. Religious orthodoxy is responsible for the most narrow oppressive restrictions on thought and opinion around the world.
• Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ballpark. Absolutely. The complete absence of any objective evidence for the supernatural.
• Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on. A better question is religion a frivolous exercise in intellectual deception that produces delusion? Absolutely.

---

---

1. We didn't make the claim; you did
2. So, you got no answer
3. You don't understand fine tuning
4. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
5. Unproven assertion
6. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
7. Doesn't invalidate the statement.
8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Already defeated.
9. So you don't contest the statement.

And still no evidence that debunks God and Christianity.

You lose.

---

The is no plausible explanation or need for God, but there is plausible explanation for our existence. How do you kow that Odin doesn't exist?

---

Plausible or implausible to whom? A heavily biased atheist who is desperate to validate himself?

---

On the contrary, objective quantum physicicsts who have demonstrated mathmatically the formation of the universe, without the need for any behind the scenes shenanigans. That's far more than you can say about creationism origins. What is the origin for Yahweh, other than in the minds of Jewish men?

---

You can demonstrate mathematically the formation of a house of cards by gravity and chance. That's far more than you can say about it having been created by a person.

See how stupid that sounds?

---

Mathematics also demonstrates the near impossible conditions required for life to develop. Cool how mathematics doesn't choose sides

---

You can win 100 hands of blackjack in a row and argue it is mathematically possible, so it's legit. But no one's gonna buy it, and the casino will throw your ass outta there.

Funny how "plausible" the mathematics become when you desperately need it to be.

---

There is a difference in demonstrating how something comes about mathematically, and assigning in mathematical probabilities as you're talking about.

---

Nothing comes about mathematically. Math doesn't bring things into ecistence.

---

Mathematics may not bring things into existence but it can make things disappear; like my Schwann Stingray disappeared for a couple weeks till my grades came up.

Sweet ride

TexasScientist said:

---

Your definition of nothing may not be applicable in quantum mechanics.
You can remove everything from space - all matter, atoms, and radiation from space until you have a vacuum (nothing), and sub atomic particles come in and out of existence for an extremely minute fraction of a second.

---

Once again, a vacuum is NOT nothing. It is a vacuum. The universe was not created in a vacuum. It was created out of nothing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Reluctantly when faced with not other choice. Example - The Church's treatment of Galileo. Now it claims he was a "scientist for the Church." I will acknowledge that the Catholic Church has changed its beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. In some instances it has supported scientific investigation, in others it has resisted.

---

The Galileo affair has been distorted by atheists and Protestants alike for centuries. As I've stated before, it is a complex story.

Galileo was NOT the first person to believe in heliocentrism. Copernicus and Kepler both beat him to the punch. Pope Urban VIII gave permission to his friend, Galileo to write arguments both for and against it. He was allowed to hold the theory, but he went and proclaimed it as truth.

He wrote his book, Dialogue on the Two World Systems, where he mocked his friend and benefactor, Urban VIII in the book.

Galileo was NEVER tortured. He was sentenced to house arrest, where he lived a very comfortable life.

Finally, was ultimately not entirely correct about his theory. He believed that the sun was the fixed center of the universe, not the solar system. Science has proven him wrong there. Also, he was incorrect about the shape of the orbits.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Your definition of nothing may not be applicable in quantum mechanics.
You can remove everything from space - all matter, atoms, and radiation from space until you have a vacuum (nothing), and sub atomic particles come in and out of existence for an extremely minute fraction of a second.

---

Once again, a vacuum is NOT nothing. It is a vacuum. The universe was not created in a vacuum. It was created out of nothing.

TexasScientist said:

---

Reluctantly when faced with not other choice. Example - The Church's treatment of Galileo. Now it claims he was a "scientist for the Church." I will acknowledge that the Catholic Church has changed its beliefs in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. In some instances it has supported scientific investigation, in others it has resisted.

---

The Galileo affair has been distorted by atheists and Protestants alike for centuries. As I've stated before, it is a complex story.

Galileo was NOT the first person to believe in heliocentrism. Copernicus and Kepler both beat him to the punch. Pope Urban VIII gave permission to his friend, Galileo to write arguments both for and against it. He was allowed to hold the theory, but he went and proclaimed it as truth.

He wrote his book, Dialogue on the Two World Systems, where he mocked his friend and benefactor, Urban VIII in the book.

Galileo was NEVER tortured. He was sentenced to house arrest, where he lived a very comfortable life.

Finally, was ultimately not entirely correct about his theory. He believed that the sun was the fixed center of the universe, not the solar system. Science has proven him wrong there. Also, he was incorrect about the shape of the orbits.

---

And why do you think he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life, forced to recant his beliefs, and forbidden to say what he thought? Heresy?

In the quantum world, your definition of "nothing" may not exist. Guth and others have shown how in a vacuum, in quantum theory, particles of matter, energy, and space time can spontaneously come into existence including the physical laws that govern them, without any need for the supernatural. A uinverse with characteristics similar if not identical to ours will form.