[Gary Wassner]

But why Kong? If you discard the rules only when its convenient, how do you then determine when they apply? Ressurection is possible? Then it's possible for me too. If the devil can posses one person, then it can possess another.

Your distinction between probable and possible is a good one. Unfortunately, if some of the things that you accept as fact, more than probable, more than just possible, but factual, such as some of the events retold in scripture, have actually occurred, then there is no difference between probable and possible any longer. There is no standard against which we could possibly measure ever again.

[JRMurdock]

And why wouldn't we need science? Science can still create alot of stuff for us and show how to make more things possible for us.

This is a counter intuitive statement. If you have God, you don't need science. God will always provide, according to the Bible. By placing your faith in God, and all things are possible, science should be shunned. Science seeks to disprove God's existance, therefore should not be allowed. For if God is disproven, Religion loses. Right?

So let me pose this question. Is your faith strong in God or in Science?

This is a trick question BTW. :)

[kongming]

Why does it need to be proven? If you can't prove that the car works the way that science tells you it works is that going to stop you from driving it? Society advances because we become closer to the truth with every step. Every time we stack more evidence on that hypothesis meaning everytime that piston causes a combustive explosion in the exact way that the hypothesis tells us it does we get closer to proving it. But the only way we can PROVE it conclusively as a law of the universe is to see it do the exact same thing an infinite number of times. Someday hopefully we will be able to see that.

Yes they do see seeing is believing but "Seeing it makes it true." is not as common, because I don't think it works that way. I have seen God, and felt the presence of the Godly and UnGodly and have spoken to both. You likely have too but might not interpret it that way. I can't tell you what is and what isn't, you are the only one that can convince yourself.

And yes Yahweh is a liar and he is absolutely truthful. As I said I don't have a problem with the paradox of omnipotence.


It's nice that this conversation is maintaining its light tone. :)

Anyway. I just want to make sure I understand this: You're saying that just because science says if you put a spark to gasoline mist it will explode and drive a piston downward that this is a theory that cannot be proven? Actually it's not even up to theory status in your view by only a hypothesis? If that is the case, I need to understand something. How has society advanced if nothing science 'claims' to be true can be proven?

If science has proven nothing, and religion has proven nothing, and all things must be taken on 'faith' where does that leave us as a society? They say seeing is believing. I've seen a lot through science. I've never seen God. Why does he choose to hide? Why does the Bible claim he was there for the first couple thousand of years and suddenly disappeared and has nothing to do with his 'children' anymore? God claimed in the Bible (through Jesus) that once he was gone, there would be no further proof of his existence. All things must be taken on faith. This would mean that a 'miracle' would disprove that statement. That would make God a liar. That would make him fallible. That would make him human. If God is human, he's not a God.

[kongming]

Well the truths that I have come closer to through observation, medidation and research. I can only say for sure that there are varying degrees of probability for everything. For me God is the creator and Jesus is his son is the ultimate Probability, the Earth orbiting the sun is probably second. As for what is IMPOSSIBLE I can't fully say yet and I don't think anyone has that answer. I happen to like it that way. You can only have hope when something is possible.

We measure these things every day: when we say this is possible and this is not, we must really mean probable or not, because none of us as far as I can tell actually KNOW.

But why Kong? If you discard the rules only when its convenient, how do you then determine when they apply? Ressurection is possible? Then it's possible for me too. If the devil can posses one person, then it can possess another.

Your distinction between probable and possible is a good one. Unfortunately, if some of the things that you accept as fact, more than probable, more than just possible, but factual, such as some of the events retold in scripture, have actually occurred, then there is no difference between probable and possible any longer. There is no standard against which we could possibly measure ever again.

[Gary Wassner]

Kong, if I wasn't convinced that my car would stop each time I stepped on the brakes, then I wouldn't drive. The frightening thing about faith is that it is so selective.

[JRMurdock]

But by your earlier posts, anything is possible at any time. This means you must belive that the car could turn into a turnip as you drive down the road rather than continue in a planned and predicted manner. Doesn't it drive you mad to think that your car could start floating away because gravity stopped working? If anything could happen at anytime, I'd be terrifed to leave my home. Heck, my home could turn into a waterfall. I'd be too petrified to do anything if 'science' wasn't able to explain anything.

If science is so fallible, how can you trust that when you turn on your computer, anything will happen? You could hit that button and your arm might fall off by your very argument. Random events could occur at any moment.

My point of this dialogue is this: Randomness rarely occurs. Science has been able to define and predict things with great accuracy a mojority of the time. To say nothing is proven unless you're 100% correct 100% of the time for infinity is to say that tomorrow the sun may turn into a flower or the moon may actually become a frisbie and fly away. For life to be so unpredictable and random would drive me off the brink.

[kongming]

I don't see the connection why have we placed the two in opposition to each other. Do we really think God cares if we prove or disprove his existence? He'll still exist and not exist whether we think so or not.

And I don't think science seeks to DISprove Gods existence. I think so far science has really shied away from even tackling that. I would say that it wants to know one way or the other but is waiting for a better time to try.

I don't think science should be shunned and I don't think religeon should be either. Why can't we all just get along and sing happy songs with flowers and bunny? :p

And even if God were disproven I don't think religeon will lose because the basic principles it has stood for are still very useful to humans.

My faith is strong in both. I don't think they should be seperate. I have faith that one day science will prove something and that something will be the existence of God.

I really hope I avoided your dirty tricks :confused:

This is a counter intuitive statement. If you have God, you don't need science. God will always provide, according to the Bible. By placing your faith in God, and all things are possible, science should be shunned. Science seeks to disprove God's existance, therefore should not be allowed. For if God is disproven, Religion loses. Right?

So let me pose this question. Is your faith strong in God or in Science?

This is a trick question BTW. :)

[kongming]

Are you absolutely certain your car will stop? Why?

Kong, if I wasn't convinced that my car would stop each time I stepped on the brakes, then I wouldn't drive. The frightening thing about faith is that it is so selective.

[kongming]

That was amusing, and in a good non-sarcastic way :D

I really really hate it when you're driving down the highway passing these two beautiful girls in a convertable and suddenly your riding a turnip into a truckload of waterfalls.

My point was that in our perception everything is possible just some things are more probable than others. And know I don't know how probable it is that random events like you stated would actually happen. I imagine that they are as probable as God not having created the universe.

I don't anything will happen at any time. I think that anything COULD but the likelyhood is so low as to not worry about it. How do you walk out on the street knowing that you could die at any time? You know how likely it is that you will die in a car crash?

I don't see science predicting much with any accuracy, if what you say is true than alot of people in the pacific owe a bunch scientists a punch in the nose.

But by your earlier posts, anything is possible at any time. This means you must belive that the car could turn into a turnip as you drive down the road rather than continue in a planned and predicted manner. Doesn't it drive you mad to think that your car could start floating away because gravity stopped working? If anything could happen at anytime, I'd be terrifed to leave my home. Heck, my home could turn into a waterfall. I'd be too petrified to do anything if 'science' wasn't able to explain anything.

If science is so fallible, how can you trust that when you turn on your computer, anything will happen? You could hit that button and your arm might fall off by your very argument. Random events could occur at any moment.

My point of this dialogue is this: Randomness rarely occurs. Science has been able to define and predict things with great accuracy a mojority of the time. To say nothing is proven unless you're 100% correct 100% of the time for infinity is to say that tomorrow the sun may turn into a flower or the moon may actually become a frisbie and fly away. For life to be so unpredictable and random would drive me off the brink.

[Gary Wassner]

Hey, unless I forgot to get it inspected and I ignored all of the moans and squeaks, I expect that the brakes will work. And guess what? So far I have been correct. Isn't that amazing? I also turned the light switch upward this morning and the lights went on. When I dialed a combination of numbers on my telephone, the person I had hoped would, answered. Should I be astounded by all of this?

But, sadly, when I tried to walk across the street while all of the cars were zooming by, I almost got killed. Though I thought I might be able to stop them by wishing it, I was wrong.