This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is 'too complex' a viable argument?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
283199
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The sentence struck me as
possibly
offensive. I decided to assume the best of the other person, and that they were simply misinformed about Christianity, and not that they were trying to insult. This way, if they actually weren't trying to insult, they will be more open minded to what I say. If I just walked into the conversation and /facepalm him, I would have immediately set a negative tone. How could that help the situation? As a Christian, I need to love those around me, and, as you know,
love is patient
. How does it make me feel when someone, in defense of Christianity, sees a slight transgression that stands a good possibility of being unintentional, and provokes the situation instead of using a kind and understanding tone?
You need to learn to be magnanomous.
And it's "intelligent" to spout off information you're not sure about?
Your standard for intelligent conversation is quite low.
Sometimes I wonder if you are even reading my posts.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Wow. How is the existence of God testable?
I dunno. You're the only one to mention it being testable. So you tell me.Um, no. I said it's not testable you said:
Yes they are testable. Just as you must perform experiments many times to determine if a natural explanation is satisfactory, here you perform many experiments to show that no other explanation is satisfactory.
Short attention span?
Yours seems to be shorter. Try looking up the antecedent of
they
.
Second, you can't perform an infinite number of experiments.
Self-defeating argument is self-defeating. Why? Because that means nothing science says can be true.You're confusing what I said with the idea of the repeatability of experiments. You are saying you can exhaust an infinite number of possible explanations through experiment to come to the conclusion of a supernatural explanation.
I'm saying that you can't exhaust all the variables in either case.
This is nonsense. What you are saying is that if we can't solve a problem using a scientific method, we should just make up a solution and stop trying?
You cannot redefine science in this manner. We already have a definition for that sort of thinking and its called theology.
Theology works from the top down. Science works from the bottom up. They are both different.
Post by
MyTie
Theology works from the top down. Science works from the bottom up. They are both different.
You guys aren't going to get anywhere with HSR. Kind of reminds me of the
time cube
guy
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
ID is at the root of a movement that involves the re-definition of science that says science
can
accept supernatural explanations.
This is nonsense. What you are saying is that if we can't solve a problem using a scientific method, we should just make up a solution and stop trying?
You cannot redefine science in this manner. We already have a definition for that sort of thinking and its called theology.
It gets worse. Read my sig.
Meh, from what I've seen Supernatural, if it exists in the first place, is just another classification that can exist within science.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Science is the study of nature.
Super-natural is beyond nature.
Shoot me now.
It's intrinsic to the natural study of science, which goes from top to bottom. This formal exposition of the essential facts is completely necessary in forming a conclusion of the experiments that are intrinsic therein. Therefore, such conclusions must be based not on the least common provable factor, but on the least uncommon provable factor.
Post by
Orranis
ID is at the root of a movement that involves the re-definition of science that says science
can
accept supernatural explanations.
This is nonsense. What you are saying is that if we can't solve a problem using a scientific method, we should just make up a solution and stop trying?
You cannot redefine science in this manner. We already have a definition for that sort of thinking and its called theology.
It gets worse. Read my sig.
Meh, from what I've seen Supernatural, if it exists in the first place, is just another classification that can exist within science.Science is the study of nature.
Super-natural is beyond nature.
Shoot me now.
I ask you to define "nature."
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Science is the study of nature.
Super-natural is beyond nature.
Shoot me now.
It's intrinsic to the natural study of science, which goes from top to bottom.
This formal exposition of the essential facts is completely necessary in forming a conclusion of the experiments that are intrinsic therein. Therefore, such conclusions must be based not on the least common provable factor, but on the least uncommon provable factor.
Theology works from the top down.
Science works from the bottom up.
They are both different.What this is I don't even...
Once the value of the preformed consequence can be achieved, the necessary calculation can be deduced from the intrinsic understanding of what is not provable. If all variables prove to be equal, or parallel, any outside equations can then be applied. Until this is reached with the second law of thermodynamics, which proves these theories, not one definition can be drawn.
Post by
Orranis
ID is at the root of a movement that involves the re-definition of science that says science
can
accept supernatural explanations.
This is nonsense. What you are saying is that if we can't solve a problem using a scientific method, we should just make up a solution and stop trying?
You cannot redefine science in this manner. We already have a definition for that sort of thinking and its called theology.
It gets worse. Read my sig.
Meh, from what I've seen Supernatural, if it exists in the first place, is just another classification that can exist within science.Science is the study of nature.
Super-natural is beyond nature.
Shoot me now.
I ask you to define "nature."
Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. It ranges in scale from the subatomic to the cosmic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature
Some things cannot be defined by Wikipeida, and everyone has their own definition for. Both Nature and Supernatural are these types of words. For me, nature means, quite literally, everything. The supernatural for me is just what the name would imply, super-natural. Nature in it's strangest sense is still nature.
Post by
Adamsm
So many quote's......
Post by
MyTie
So many quote's......
The volume within the measurable distance along the path of the studiable vortex will yield a result less than the intrinsic definition allows. Without first disproving the inverse relationship between the two poles, first going down, then a result will be achieved that is not conducive to the desired outcome.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
563787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The volume within the measurable distance along the path of the studiable vortex will yield a result less than the intrinsic definition allows. Without first disproving the inverse relationship between the two poles, first going down, then a result will be achieved that is not conducive to the desired outcome.Once the value of the preformed consequence can be achieved, the necessary calculation can be deduced from the intrinsic understanding of what is not provable. If all variables prove to be equal, or parallel, any outside equations can then be applied. Until this is reached with the second law of thermodynamics, which proves these theories, not one definition can be drawn.It's intrinsic to the natural study of science, which goes from top to bottom. This formal exposition of the essential facts is completely necessary in forming a conclusion of the experiments that are intrinsic therein. Therefore, such conclusions must be based not on the least common provable factor, but on the least uncommon provable factor.I say, my good
lad
.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.