Go to The Reverend Kooka Speaks About Religious Bulls#!t
- Add a comment
- Go to BELIEVERS, DO YOU KNOW HOW SCIENCE WORKS?
Ody
Well, yes they can. Although we have yet to meet any to confirm some of the possibilities we have come up with. We have come up with many, many scientific ideas about possible aliens. It gets written off as Sci-fi, but most modern Sci-fi has a great deal of real science backing it up, including the ideas used for the aliens.
As for God, even your ideas of God are beyond science. You do have God being all-powerful without limits. That is the easy answer that God becomes. I have presented various concepts taking God and putting God as a much more logical aspect of the universe that could become science at some point as we learn. The all-powerful God is not science and can not become science and any actions taken by such a God can not be science. So unless God can be explained in a way to make his abilities scientific, anything related to God becomes easy answers and not science.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 22, 2005 at 7:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
Well aliens can’t yet be explained by science either, so that contention is not valid. And let’s not confine ourselves to the Biblical God, or to God as defined by any one creed. As you know, I relate to God on broader terms.
posted by
telemachus
on September 22, 2005 at 12:01 AM
| link to this | reply
So Ody
I guess I am saying 'yes' to that.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 21, 2005 at 7:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Ody
Until God can be explained through science, the idea of God itself doing anything is unscientific. Now intelligent design can work without the Biblical idea of God and I have presented several ideas of the past that do just that. At times I think there might be something to the idea of intelligent design, but that does not mean there is an all-powerful God behind it, instead I look at the more realistic possibilities that could be scientifically proven at some point. Science becomes meaningless if you can jump to 'It was God' or 'it was the Devil whenever you just can not figure things out any more, and that is what many believers who discredit science do. It is just an easy answer instead of really trying to figure out the truth of how the universe works. Part of my big issue with the idea of God is it mostly is just simple answer that really answer nothing at all.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 21, 2005 at 7:44 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka
It sounds like you are saying that “intelligent design” is a farce if one sees God as its source but is legitimate if ones sees an alien race as the source. Surely you see the problems with that line of reasoning. Tell me I’m misunderstanding you, please!
posted by
telemachus
on September 21, 2005 at 7:00 PM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
I do not relentlessly pursue anyone. If someone doesn’t want to discuss or debate things, all they have to do is ask. I certainly do not hate you. In fact, I enjoyed conversing with you a great deal. I have no idea what communication attempts you are referring to, but, after reading your comments here, perhaps it is best that you keep me blocked out of your blog. I sincerely have no desire to antagonize you and apologize for causing you so much stress.
posted by
telemachus
on September 21, 2005 at 6:56 PM
| link to this | reply
good post
good logic
there is a "scientific method:. What one does in utilizing the scientific method is to put forth a hypothesis regarding a process or other such occurence. Then one puts in order the arguments supporting the hypothesis. Then one tests the validity of the arguments, which then tests the validity of the hypothesis. Testing is the performing of experiments. Or observation. When, in this case, observation validates the hypothesis, then we should recognize such. Palentologists and other scientists have. The various sciences demonstrate the theory of evolution and validate it profoundly.
Then there is the scientific method as it applies to logic. Syllogisms and other rhetorical devices apply here. Such as a=b and b=c therefore a=c. and so on. The one I like, however, if "all lions are cats, but not all cats are lions."
many religious pronouncers faithfully violate this syllogism. They see a lion and conclude that all cats are lions. They throw out accusations not based in any fact or validity at all.
my outlook: if anyone wants me to ascribe validity to them or what they say, then what they say and how they act must demonstrate validity.
one of the foundrs of Christianity said, "Prove all things."
The word ALL is the operative word here. It is then imperative upon Christians to present their proofs, not lay back on faith. "Faith is evidence." To me, that means that faith is founded and built on certain validities, experiences, occurences. If something demonstrates its validity, then I can have faith in it, and in things I have not yet expierienced that can be based on that. If I see that a man is accurate at hitting nails with a hammer, then I can be assured that he will hit the nail the next time he brings a hammer down; but if I see a man miss the nail and hit his thumb frequently, then I cannot be sure that he will hit the nail next time. If I am asked to hold a nail for someone to hammer, then who will I have faith in not to hit that hand that holds the nail.
I cannot have faith in something that has not been proved, as Paul says.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 19, 2005 at 6:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Ody
“intelligent design” can never be called science and if any scientist is going that route they are just giving up and taking the easy way out instead of actually working to find the answers. Unless of course they are going with the idea of alien intelligence or something that could be proven. I myself have present several ideas here in the past that are much closer to being based on science and provable open way or the other if we were ever to reach the needed level of technology. God itself and anything related to higher powers in that form are not and therefore are not science and never will be. At that you are just backing up my idea here by saying believers do not understand science and would rather follow the easy answer of saying it was God who did it all.
posted by
kooka_lives
on September 19, 2005 at 6:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus -- Intense debate? Is that what you call it?
How about calling what you attempt to do by it's real name? The relentless pursuit of those who do not believe in, or worship your version of a supreme being. Predicated by your certainty that no one can be a "good" person if they do not believe in your God. If one chooses to "debate" with you they can count on being routinely insulted to the point of slander, as you use any deceptive means at your disposal to further your agenda. Including, but not limited to your manufactured hatred towards athiests. The fact that this is the 5th time that you have attempted to re-open communication with me since I blocked you, demonstrates a form of unhealthy obsession. Get help buddy.
posted by
gomedome
on September 18, 2005 at 8:46 PM
| link to this | reply
Kooka
Presently, many scientists are touting “intelligent design” as a very probable explanation for our existence. I hope the guy isn’t bugging Gomedome too much; I don’t think Gome has a great deal of tolerance for intense debate. By the way Gome, you're welcome to comment in my blog anytime it pleases you. I don't believe in retaliatory tariffs.
posted by
telemachus
on September 18, 2005 at 7:39 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - and you know what's really sad about all of this?
Some of these people really believe this stuff. The following picture was offered to me as proof that man of the common era (CE) knew of dinosaurs from first person contact. This is supposedly a tapestry from 700CE (1,300 years ago) clearly showing a dinosaur depicted by the artist. The article went on to explain that only a modern day paleantholgist could have filled in the detail so accurately without first hand knowledge. No laughing now, But when I took a close look at the picture you see below I had ask what drugs these people are on.
The accuracy of a modern day paleanthologist? Since when have dinosaurs had square heads? Then to really top it off we are immediately given a size reference for this animal (I think we can agree that it is an animal of some sort) by a partially erased bird sitting on the nose of the "dinosaur". So it was a little dinosaur, maybe about the size of a camel. Those square feet musta been a bitch in the desert. It's just too funny.
posted by
gomedome
on September 18, 2005 at 7:28 PM
| link to this | reply