Fans First - Non Football General Discussion

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Spartan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:11:56 GMT

Mozart1220:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.

You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.
I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
So let me get this straight. You rail on me for relying on experts and measurable observable data, by saying that isn't "fact".

THEN you call God a "fact" when there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wow.

Mozart, all I want from you at this point is this list of MEASURABLE FACTS you've constantly referred to but never revealed. Why won't you just answer? All that whining you did trying to get jester to answer an insignificant question yet you can't answer this?

NO EVIDENCE OF GOD WHATSOEVER. Period. End of story.

Measurable facts? Universe expanding. Residual radiation. You CHOOSE to disregard these things, but the overwhelming majoority of scie3ntists don't, and neither do I.

Case CLOSED, at least until viable alternatives are accepted.

No evidence of God that YOU are aware of.
How about ONE then, that anyone is aware of?
What do you want, a list of prophets, or benefactors of miracles?

Thankfully the world doesn't revolve around you so what you see as lack of existence means nothing to others who have experienced their own evidence.

Like what that can be accepted by all as actual evidence?
So now you say in order for evidence to be evidence, everybody in the world needs to know about it?

Period. End of story. Get over yourself.

It's not about me getting over anything. It's the FACT that to date, there has not been one reliable measurable, observable, VERIFIABLE, piece of evidence that any supreme being that created the entire universe exists.

Not one.
What do you want? You want God to appear to you, tap you on the shoulder and say "Hey Mozart, if you don't stop bad mouthing me I'll have to smite you"?
There are literary accounts of Jesus, and prophets. Actual witnesses. Do you have any witness that saw this matter, that didn't exist yet, start spinning and compressing into a dot and then got super heated and exploded and expanded into the universe?
LOL. I'm expecting a list and you give me 2 things. Sounds like your definition of "measurable fact" is an estimate that ignores all possible variables.

I gave you two that are definite. Two is a "list". And my definition of measurabl facts is the same as every imminent scientist in the world today. Like Stephen Hawking for one. I guess you think he's a moron.
Nothing about the big bang is definite. You're going over the top now. Not even scientists believe it's definite. Actually I believe you are the one who thinks Hawking's a moron judging from 1 of your previous posts.
To say there is definite proof of the big bang is a bit illogical. You're talking about a scientific theory which is refutable, not a scientific law.

To say because the universe is expanding the Big Bang theory is the only answer is very short sighted. As vast as the universe is surely you can theorize on your own that there could be any number of things that can attribute to that other than a big bang theory. As for residual radiation, that certainly doesn't dictate the big bang occurred and space is full of it anyway. As long as there is energy or matter moving through space, there will be radiation.

Here's a scientific "measurable fact" for you. The universe is 5-20 billion years old, maybe a little less, maybe a little more, maybe a lot more.

They have it narrowed down to a bit closer than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

They actually haven't narrowed it down at all. It will always change cause it's just their best guess for now and if you regard such a rough estimate as a measurable fact, I'd have to believe you don't know what is actually truly measurable or even what a fact is.
Does that sound like a "measurable fact" to you or more like a rough estimate that will most likely just keep changing?

It sounds pretty well established to me. And I'm in very reliable company on that one I'm afraid.
It's forever changing and nowhere near truly measurable. You have to realize that.

This Big Bang theory is nothing more than pseudoscience with no real measurable beginning and no real measurable end which would make it quite the useless scientific theory.

Uh...maybe you should read the above just ONE more time...
Why? So I can be ignorant and ignore the many, and what should be obvious, variables that you refuse to consider? No thanks

Roughly 100 years of observable data for this theory vs as much as 20 billion years that is unobserved, and scientists and you decide that's not a problem. Brilliant!

They have physical laws to help them. And the speed of light and all sorts of other "pseudoscience"
Speed of light has little to do with it. redshifts they claim prove the universe is expanding is actually measured by sound waves using the doppler effect for sound. Surely you know sound waves are completely different than light and the speed of both can be greatly influenced by other variables.
Many astronomers believe some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the galaxies apart. It is also well known that light is easily red shifted by simply passing it through gases or plastics.

You go along with it because it is widely accepted.

And provable.
Only if you completely ignore the plethora of variables, are extremely short sighted, and don't understand that scientific theories, by design, are refutable.

A lot of things are widely accepted by ignorant masses but that doesn't make those things fact.

Take religion for example. No facts there. Lot's of "ignorant masses" though.
Ignorant masses are everywhere and there are just as many in regards to science as there is in regards to religion.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Mozart1220 — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:49:02 GMT

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.

You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.
I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
So let me get this straight. You rail on me for relying on experts and measurable observable data, by saying that isn't "fact".

THEN you call God a "fact" when there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wow.

Mozart, all I want from you at this point is this list of MEASURABLE FACTS you've constantly referred to but never revealed. Why won't you just answer? All that whining you did trying to get jester to answer an insignificant question yet you can't answer this?

NO EVIDENCE OF GOD WHATSOEVER. Period. End of story.

Measurable facts? Universe expanding. Residual radiation. You CHOOSE to disregard these things, but the overwhelming majoority of scie3ntists don't, and neither do I.

Case CLOSED, at least until viable alternatives are accepted.

No evidence of God that YOU are aware of.
How about ONE then, that anyone is aware of?

Thankfully the world doesn't revolve around you so what you see as lack of existence means nothing to others who have experienced their own evidence.

Like what that can be accepted by all as actual evidence?

Period. End of story. Get over yourself.

It's not about me getting over anything. It's the FACT that to date, there has not been one reliable measurable, observable, VERIFIABLE, piece of evidence that any supreme being that created the entire universe exists.

Not one.

LOL. I'm expecting a list and you give me 2 things. Sounds like your definition of "measurable fact" is an estimate that ignores all possible variables.

I gave you two that are definite. Two is a "list". And my definition of measurabl facts is the same as every imminent scientist in the world today. Like Stephen Hawking for one. I guess you think he's a moron.

Here's a scientific "measurable fact" for you. The universe is 5-20 billion years old, maybe a little less, maybe a little more, maybe a lot more.

They have it narrowed down to a bit closer than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

Does that sound like a "measurable fact" to you or more like a rough estimate that will most likely just keep changing?

It sounds pretty well established to me. And I'm in very reliable company on that one I'm afraid.

This Big Bang theory is nothing more than pseudoscience with no real measurable beginning and no real measurable end which would make it quite the useless scientific theory.

Uh...maybe you should read the above just ONE more time...

Roughly 100 years of observable data for this theory vs as much as 20 billion years that is unobserved, and scientists and you decide that's not a problem. Brilliant!

They have physical laws to help them. And the speed of light and all sorts of other "pseudoscience"

You go along with it because it is widely accepted.

And provable.

A lot of things are widely accepted by ignorant masses but that doesn't make those things fact.

Take religion for example. No facts there. Lot's of "ignorant masses" though.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Spartan — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:10:33 GMT

Mozart1220:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.

You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.
I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
So let me get this straight. You rail on me for relying on experts and measurable observable data, by saying that isn't "fact".

THEN you call God a "fact" when there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wow.

Mozart, all I want from you at this point is this list of MEASURABLE FACTS you've constantly referred to but never revealed. Why won't you just answer? All that whining you did trying to get jester to answer an insignificant question yet you can't answer this?

NO EVIDENCE OF GOD WHATSOEVER. Period. End of story.

Measurable facts? Universe expanding. Residual radiation. You CHOOSE to disregard these things, but the overwhelming majoority of scie3ntists don't, and neither do I.

Case CLOSED, at least until viable alternatives are accepted.

No evidence of God that YOU are aware of. Thankfully the world doesn't revolve around you so what you see as lack of existence means nothing to others who have experienced their own evidence. Period. End of story. Get over yourself.

LOL. I'm expecting a list and you give me 2 things. Sounds like your definition of "measurable fact" is an estimate that ignores all possible variables.

Here's a scientific "measurable fact" for you. The universe is 5-20 billion years old, maybe a little less, maybe a little more, maybe a lot more. Does that sound like a "measurable fact" to you or more like a rough estimate that will most likely just keep changing? This Big Bang theory is nothing more than pseudoscience with no real measurable beginning and no real measurable end which would make it quite the useless scientific theory.

Roughly 100 years of observable data for this theory vs as much as 20 billion years that is unobserved, and scientists and you decide that's not a problem. Brilliant!

You go along with it because it is widely accepted. A lot of things are widely accepted by ignorant masses but that doesn't make those things fact.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Mozart1220 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:47:38 GMT

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.

You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.
I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
So let me get this straight. You rail on me for relying on experts and measurable observable data, by saying that isn't "fact".

THEN you call God a "fact" when there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wow.

Mozart, all I want from you at this point is this list of MEASURABLE FACTS you've constantly referred to but never revealed. Why won't you just answer? All that whining you did trying to get jester to answer an insignificant question yet you can't answer this?

NO EVIDENCE OF GOD WHATSOEVER. Period. End of story. .

Measurable facts? Universe expanding. Residual radiation. You CHOOSE to disregard these things, but the overwhelming majoority of scie3ntists don't, and neither do I.

Case CLOSED, at least until viable alternatives are accepted.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Spartan — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:31:08 GMT

Mozart1220:
Spartan:
DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.

You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.
I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
So let me get this straight. You rail on me for relying on experts and measurable observable data, by saying that isn't "fact".

THEN you call God a "fact" when there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wow.

Mozart, all I want from you at this point is this list of MEASURABLE FACTS you've constantly referred to but never revealed. Why won't you just answer? All that whining you did trying to get jester to answer an insignificant question yet you can't answer this?

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Mozart1220 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:42:15 GMT

Spartan:
DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:

Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.

You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.
I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
So let me get this straight. You rail on me for relying on experts and measurable observable data, by saying that isn't "fact".

THEN you call God a "fact" when there is no evidence whatsoever.

Wow.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Rocky Mountain Bear — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:15:47 GMT

Spartan:
cnobody:
Spartan:
Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
and this is why this debate that we have on here is really pointless. not to disparage your position, but to show that one cannot argue science and faith, facts and belief when the very words we use do not describe the same things. a scientist will never acknowledge your use of the word fact and many christians (perhaps you, but i don't know) tend to misunderstand the scientific definition of the word theory. we're all all right. we're all all right.
I think bearmick was the one who pointed out earlier the 2 could coexist. I believe he was right. I know what the word theory means and I know how a scientific theory is on a different level than just a theory. Still, a scientific theory, at least parts of it, is always refutable so for someone to say a scientific theory is practically fact just seems like overkill to me.

This is not quite true. A scientific theory is a dynamic entity that must change if repeatable contradictory data is observed. A negative finding is even more useful than finding supporting evidence. This is how a theory evolves.

The big difference comes when people start talking about empirical theories vs. philosophical theories.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

DR.Metal — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:41:30 GMT

armagedn:
Buddha13:
DR.Metal:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....

But if we Don't believe in a Christian God we'll Burn forever moz!!!!!!!!

only after you die.

Ah, the sweet, everlasting kiss of death. Where would religion be without it?

I bet before religion that was a pickup line. Sleep with me or forever burn in the land of fire!

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

armagedn — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:26:27 GMT

Buddha13:
DR.Metal:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....

But if we Don't believe in a Christian God we'll Burn forever moz!!!!!!!!

only after you die.

Ah, the sweet, everlasting kiss of death. Where would religion be without it?

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Buddha13 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:14:16 GMT

DR.Metal:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....

But if we Don't believe in a Christian God we'll Burn forever moz!!!!!!!!

only after you die.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

DR.Metal — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:17:30 GMT

Spartan:
cnobody:
Spartan:
Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
and this is why this debate that we have on here is really pointless. not to disparage your position, but to show that one cannot argue science and faith, facts and belief when the very words we use do not describe the same things. a scientist will never acknowledge your use of the word fact and many christians (perhaps you, but i don't know) tend to misunderstand the scientific definition of the word theory. we're all all right. we're all all right.
I think bearmick was the one who pointed out earlier the 2 could coexist. I believe he was right. I know what the word theory means and I know how a scientific theory is on a different level than just a theory. Still, a scientific theory, at least parts of it, is always refutable so for someone to say a scientific theory is practically fact just seems like overkill to me.

Evolution and a God could very well Be hand in hand.. I am open to the Possibility of a creator though I don't believe in one.

What I am not open to and something I will never believe is the Possibility of a Loving and caring Creator, that guides us and watches over us as its Children and that created us in its own image. That is a bunch of bull.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

DR.Metal — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:14:49 GMT

Spartan:
DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.
You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.
I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.

I could not care less about what Mozart Was going on about, I don't share his every belief..

God cannot be Fact to anyone Because you cannot Prove he Exists or even if he is affecting your life. You can't see wind but you can feel it. God is nowhere to be seen or felt.

No one sees his work. he has no work. That you feel isn't god. Could be a tumor. get it checked out.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Spartan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:05:33 GMT

cnobody:
Spartan:
Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.
and this is why this debate that we have on here is really pointless. not to disparage your position, but to show that one cannot argue science and faith, facts and belief when the very words we use do not describe the same things. a scientist will never acknowledge your use of the word fact and many christians (perhaps you, but i don't know) tend to misunderstand the scientific definition of the word theory. we're all all right. we're all all right.

I think bearmick was the one who pointed out earlier the 2 could coexist. I believe he was right. I know what the word theory means and I know how a scientific theory is on a different level than just a theory. Still, a scientific theory, at least parts of it, is always refutable so for someone to say a scientific theory is practically fact just seems like overkill to me.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

cnobody — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:52:12 GMT

Spartan:
Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.

and this is why this debate that we have on here is really pointless. not to disparage your position, but to show that one cannot argue science and faith, facts and belief when the very words we use do not describe the same things. a scientist will never acknowledge your use of the word fact and many christians (perhaps you, but i don't know) tend to misunderstand the scientific definition of the word theory.
we're all all right. we're all all right.

Re: What if there really is a sentient being that overlooks us?

Spartan — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:43:47 GMT

DR.Metal:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Spartan:
Mozart1220:
Talk about a closed mind....
talk about a broken record and complete cop-out. What happened to that long list of MEASURABLE FACTS?

I listed them already. What happened to YOUR "open mind"?

When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that. I know guys like Stephen Hawking are jst morons trying to make a name for themselves, but hey...

As for a "sentient being that overlooks us" I'll entertain ANY mearurable observable FACTS you have to prove that.
You listed no measurable facts. You can look back in this thread and you'll see I'm not lying. You didn't list any. You kept referring to all the measurable facts and I expected that long list of them to be posted but it was not.

When the majority of experts support a scientific theory because it is the best explanation they can offer, I realize that doesn't make it fact. Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?

...... and a God based on religion is based on Pure facts? Just shot yourself in the foot there bud.

I don't think so, bud.
Let's first talk reading comprehension. Mozart said 'When the majority of experts in a feild of study reach a consensus, I go with that.' I reply with 'Why do I need to go along with anything that is not fact?' . Did I say I go with only that which is fact? No, I did not. I merely said 'WHY do I NEED to'. So what if I want to? I still don't need to but since I want to, I can. You need to understand the difference between NEED and WANT?

Secondly, God is fact to me anyway. I feel his presence and I've seen his work.