What's wrong with science as religion

Salon.com ^ | 31 Jul 08 | Karl Giberson

[Soliton]

The mere existence of life on Earth proves that it originated from somewhere

So how did your God originate?

[Soliton]

My statement was strictly from a historical perspective There is no contemporary source for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> So how did your God originate?

I don’t know. I’ll be sure to ask Him when I see Him.

But, that’s beside the point. Do you agree that life on Earth must have an origin?

H

[Soliton]

Do you agree that life on Earth must have an origin?

No.

[Uri’el-2012]

My statement was strictly from a historical perspective There is no contemporary source for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible.

That statement is patently false
and ignorant of contemporaneous history.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Soliton]

Then stop spouting nonsense and provide evidence of contemporary mention of Jesus outside of the Bible.

[ZX12R]

There is no contemporary source for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible.

I can only assume that you have not read any of the books written by biblical scholars, about the quest for the historical Jesus. This has been going on for a long time. But if you want to continue looking silly, while trying to look scientific, be my guest.

[SnakeDoctor]

>>> Do you agree that life on Earth must have an origin?

>> No.

Then how did we get here?

H

[Soliton]

Instead of bloviating, cite a source.

[Soliton]

Then how did we get here?

I don't know and neither do you. I do not believe the answer is magic however, since magic has never been shown to exist.

[SnakeDoctor]

>> I don’t know and neither do you. I do not believe the answer is magic however, since magic has never been shown to exist.

The fact that neither of us KNOW the answer doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer. There IS an answer — that answer, whatever it may be (Christian or not), is the truth. Correct?

H

[Soliton]

The fact that neither of us KNOW the answer doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer

It suggests that there may not be an answer, but we will never know without evidence.

[Skooz]

What do you mean by the "most love"/ How do you distinguish more love from less love?

Use the scientific method to tell me.

If you can't, then your statement that "All truth is measurable" is false.

It is true that I love both women.
It is true that I loved one more than the other.

Yet, no demonstration on earth can prove or disprove that. No scientific method can prove or disprove it.

Therefore, not all truth is measurable.

[lafroste]

I don't "believe" anything without evidence.

I'm curious about something: If you have evidence of something, but cannot demonstrate that evidence to anyone else, do you still believe it yourself? For example, say you saw a tree fall in your back yard because of a strong wind. And suppose that a Golden Eagle was perched in the tree as it went over. The bird flies away, the tree hits the ground. It is easy to prove the tree fell because there it lays. What about the presence of the eagle? What evidence other than your eyewitness testimony can corroborate the eagle? Then if you tell others about it, and they stiffly snif "prove it", what do you do? Do you change your mind and decide there was no eagle, or do you try to convince them?

I really am curious to know.

[Skooz]

EDIT!!

I meant "It is true that I loved both women."

Past tense. See that, Lisa? Past tense.

[Soliton]

Wow. You are confused.

[allmendream]

And most of human wisdom is not applicable to the Scientific method. A useful tool is a useful tool, but it is not the only tool. I am a Scientist, and a man of great personal faith. Science can tell us how to get into space, but not what we should do when we get there. Most of the truly fundamental questions that have always plagued mankind could never be answered by the Scientific method.

One cannot measure Love. One cannot measure God. God is love. Love is the most important thing in my life, yet it cannot be measured, it is not replicable, it is not predictable. Love IS. Love is truth. Yet it is a truth far beyond the ability of Science to measure, predict or replicate.

[Soliton]

Use the scientific method to tell me.

I am. It's your subjective feeling. It is up to you to quantify it. When you do, science can validate or invalidate the hypothesis.

[Skooz]

Wrong.

If all truth is verifiable, then even that which is subjective can be verified scientifically IF it is the truth.

Love itself cannot be verified. You can find evidence for love, but you cannot prove its existence.

I note that instead of attempting and answer, you continue to chase your tail.

Are you sure you don’t want to ping the legion of Christian bashers? You could use some back up.

[Campion]

Post 15: All truth is measurable.

Post 16: I hold that truth to be self evident

Self-contradiction in consecutive posts. Congratulations. You atheists believe the most ridiculous s--t.