Moving the goalposts.
. . . says the troll. How ironic.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Affirmation of consequent.
Apples/oranges
Looks like an appeal to probability fallacy. Shades of cum hoc ergo propter hoc also.
Posted on 10/01/2012 11:16:12 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Over the past few centuries, science can be said to have gradually chipped away at the traditional grounds for believing in God. Much of what once seemed mysterious—the existence of humanity, the life-bearing perfection of Earth, the workings of the universe—can now be explained by biology, astronomy, physics and other domains of science.
Although cosmic mysteries remain, Sean Carroll, a theoretical cosmologist at the California Institute of Technology, says there's good reason to think science will ultimately arrive at a complete understanding of the universe that leaves no grounds for God whatsoever. …
Another role for God is as a raison d'être for the universe. Even if cosmologists manage to explain how the universe began, and why it seems so fine-tuned for life, the question might remain why there is something as opposed to nothing. To many people, the answer to the question is God. According to Carroll, this answer pales under scrutiny. There can be no answer to such a question, he says. …
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That does not define “His” identity. It describes any god from Allah to Zeus.
WADR, please do not presume that those that you are addressing with this eschatology you are promulgating either know of same or subscribe to same.
The only name I know is God. If you cannot cope with that, then I suspect we should end this conversation.
Too open-ended. God(s) come with theologies attached, by definition. I am sorry you do not wish to share this particular theology of yours with the board with which I am unfamiliar, but that is your choice.
One thing Carl Sagan said that I always found interesting is never left my mind, is that he actually believed in a God, and that someday a scientific discovery would be made that actually proved His existence...and I myself suspect that this thing will be discovered when scientists look harder at the properties of light. Without getting into it too deeply, there are some studies that seem to show that light “has a mind of its own”, or at least it seems to, under certain conditions. Anyway, anytime I hear that that scientists have made a new discovery about the properties of light, it commands my attention.
What difference does a person’s personal theology make in evalutation of the arguments they present?
Absolutely everything, especially when there are conflicts with particular theologies.
That means that any scientific theory would have to be evaluated according to whether the author hold the correct religious beliefs.
Affirmation of consequent.
Theological pissing match looking for a place to happen.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Smelly flame bait.
I think that’s what’s called a category error.
. . . says the troll. How ironic.
No.
Next question.
This is where I’m supposed to get mad about being called a troll, say something intemperate, and get banned or suspended.
That’s your call.
I only want answers to some of those questions I sent your way.
So then you agree that religion is not a replacement for science, nor should the Bible be used as a science book.
Moving the goalposts.
Moving the goalposts.
. . . says the troll. How ironic.
Argumentum ad hominem.
Affirmation of consequent.
Apples/oranges
Looks like an appeal to probability fallacy. Shades of cum hoc ergo propter hoc also.
Most people will believe in God until they become immortal. One just doesn’t know what is on the other side.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.