God arguments based on science.

Employing science in a debate about God's existence most commonly betrays?

  • A profound ignorance for scientific discipline

    Votes: 2 28.6%
  • An ulterior motive

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Both a profound ignorance of scientific discipline AND an ulterior motive

    Votes: 5 71.4%

  • Total voters
    7

manifold

Diamond Member
Feb 19, 2008
57,723
8,639
2,030
your dreams
Whenever anyone tries to prove (or disprove) the existence of God based purely on science, that person:

A. Is profoundly ignorant of scientific discipline

B. Has an ulterior motive

C. Both A & B


Which do you think is most common?
 
So why didn't you include a "None of the above" in your poll?

Agenda ho!
 
I'm listening.

Explain to me how it could be none of the above please?


"Employing science in a debate about God's existence most commonly betrays?"

That's vague, employing science to prove or disprove or as part of some point on the side?

"A profound ignorance for scientific discipline"

Must one be categorized as profoundly ignorant, there is no other category?

"An ulterior motive"

Such as?

Shat-head is right, you need to re-take Polls 101.
 
OTOH, although I often take our board resident Darwin thumping athetsts to task for bothering to whine about believers, I ALSO recognize that the bible thumpers, if left to their own devices, would turn our nation into a repressive theocracy, too.

Keep your religion (or your lack of it) out of my lifestyle, please

Thank you in advance for shutting the fuck up.

Yours, completely indifferent to your believe systems,

editec
 
"Employing science in a debate about God's existence most commonly betrays?"

That's vague, employing science to prove or disprove or as part of some point on the side?

"A profound ignorance for scientific discipline"

Must one be categorized as profoundly ignorant, there is no other category?

"An ulterior motive"

Such as?

Shat-head is right, you need to re-take Polls 101.


Perhaps I should have replaced "profound" with "fundamental."
 
Whenever anyone tries to prove (or disprove) the existence of God based purely on science, that person:

A. Is profoundly ignorant of scientific discipline

B. Has an ulterior motive

C. Both A & B


Which do you think is most common?

What is most common is people trying to refute religion using scitentific theories of origin that have as much real evidence to support them as Creationism does.
 
What is most common is people trying to refute religion using scitentific theories of origin that have as much real evidence to support them as Creationism does.

Indeed, that is quite common. That is why said both prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot possibly do either and to think that it can, is to betray a fundamental ignorance of science itself, or as the poll offers as a choice, an ulterior motive.
 
OTOH, although I often take our board resident Darwin thumping athetsts to task for bothering to whine about believers, I ALSO recognize that the bible thumpers, if left to their own devices, would turn our nation into a repressive theocracy, too.

Keep your religion (or your lack of it) out of my lifestyle, please

Thank you in advance for shutting the fuck up.

Yours, completely indifferent to your believe systems,

editec


Please share that sentiment with Booboo, strolling, KK, MichaelCollins and a few others whose only purpose in posting seems to be to bash Christians.
 
the Ulterior motive is to point out the distinct difference between what IS and what IS NOT science. SCIENCE revolves around physical evidence. No way around that. Every theory that xtians cry about has physical evidence available. Talking shit to evolution doesn't validate biblical creation in SCIENCE. This is why I ask for the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE when dogma junkies get too uppity about science.
 
Indeed, that is quite common. That is why said both prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot possibly do either and to think that it can, is to betray a fundamental ignorance of science itself, or as the poll offers as a choice, an ulterior motive.

I do not see why science couldn't ultimately prove the existence or non existence of God. Perhaps you are betraying a fundamental ignorance of the possibilities of science?
 
I do not see why science couldn't ultimately prove the existence or non existence of God. Perhaps you are betraying a fundamental ignorance of the possibilities of science?


Nope. "Possibilities" is another discussion entirely. But thanks just the same sweet tits. :cool:
 

Forum List

Back
Top