makeshiftwings

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="eraser310" reply="25" id="2138640"]You guys should try just picking up the Bible and reading it. You all talk about reading all this stuff about how God can't be real, well I think that to be a good scientist you must hear and study all sides of the arguement. There are many things in the Bible that make sense. If you guys do a study you will realize that the bible has a lot of stuff in it that explains things that we thought could only be explained by technology. Consider that. [

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="forefather1" reply="19" id="2137415"]Well, well, well. ... [/quote] The weirdest part of that whole ramble was how at the end you find out it's an ad for Ocean Spray fruit juice. I like the new tag line though: "For Christ's sake, smarten up. Ocean Spray." and then there's an x-treme camera closeup on the juice bottle. PS - you spelled "smarten up" wrong.

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="Sole Soul" reply="11" id="2136767"] I'm saying that the major religions have decided that if God is playing hide and seek that, being God, and being all powerful and all that jazz, he's allowed to do that, and no one would know the difference. It's not so much that the sandwich has no qualities of existence-it's just that we aren't permitted to observe any of them. This isn't even my opinion. Personally, I dispute the "all powerful" clause. B

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="DalzK" reply="9" id="2136729"] Logic is limited. Its a human attribute, and humans are limited to only understanding some things in the 3 dimensional world. I think its very,very limited and cannot explain A LOT of things in the universe. If it cant explain so many, many things I think it would be illogical to use it as the only viable basis of our understanding of the universe and how it was created/made/etc. [/quote] Logic's not limited in the way you're implyi

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="Sole Soul" reply="1" id="2136377"] The point is that the entire concept of a God, a higher being for which there are no other higher beings, defies logic, in more ways than one. It may or may not exist, but it can't be proven (or disproven, for that matter).[/quote] Again, I think this comes down to linguistics. I would say that "lacking all qualities of existence, like provability or physicality" is exactly what the word "nonexistant" means. You're

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="DalzK" reply="21" id="2136282"] For what it's worth, I read the ontological argument, or at least this thread's phrasing of it, as a logical proof that you can't prove that God exists since it (supposedly) uses logic to prove that he in fact does, and as an extension of that, that in some things logic need not apply for the job-which I understood to be the original intent of DalzK's post. Bingo. My point of the Ontological Argument is that it uses only Logic.

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="DalzK" reply="18" id="2136271"] Thats why I said the following in my post: Note: You must agree with the definition of God above if this theory is to be valid. Most people who agree that is the definition of God.[/quote] Even if you accept that as the definition, it doesn't mean you are accepting that the thing being defined actually exists. I could accept the definition of "Unicorn" as "A magical horse with a horn on its head", but that doesn't mean I am a

Reply to Science and God (One and the same?) in Everything Else Sins Forums

[quote who="DalzK" reply="13" id="2136193"] If you don't see the gaping holes in that 'logic', then I don't know what to say... Please point out the gaps. Philosophers have been trying for hundreds of years and failed.[/quote] Actually if you look up "Ontological Argument" on wikipedia you will see that nearly all modern day philosophers find the original argument you posted (Anselm's) to be invalid. There are a few people going through linguistic contortions to