Evolution vs Creation - Church To Apologise

[drifter]

like the Higgs boson? :p

. thankyou . yes, no experiment has yet directly detected the Higgs boson . :p

 

[Zombie]

impossible to define and yet it exists...

a) certain things exist because you put faith into the tangibles and extend them into the intangibles using "leap of faith"

b) "leap of faith" means there is no way to prove, it is just a belief on steriods

c) and since there is no way to prove the intangibles because of (b) above, there is no basis to justify the needs to disprove

there is no need to solve a crime, if there is no evidence to prove a crime has been committed in the first place

things like consciousness needs no faith

 

[zhihau]

things like consciousness needs no faith

well, consciousness exists right? :p if things like consciousness needs no faith, has it become irrelevant to prove the existence of consciousness at all, simply because it's intangible thus having no basis to justify the needs to disprove?

if so, does it mean such notions only serves to support the argument that we need not disprove the existence of something intangible, thus having no needs to disprove the existence of a supernatural entity?

can i be sure you've read my post26 and post113?

 

[Zombie]

well, consciousness exists right? :p if things like consciousness needs no faith, has it become irrelevant to prove the existence of consciousness at all, simply because it's intangible thus having no basis to justify the needs to disprove?

if so, does it mean such notions only serves to support the argument that we need not disprove the existence of something intangible, thus having no needs to disprove the existence of a supernatural entity?

can i be sure you've read my post26 and post113?

Your stance is rather neutral.

But I think the onus is on the believers com sellers. The key is the link between tangibles and intangibles. That is how "supernatural entity" sells. That is "the pattern" I was talking about previously.

Being intangible is not the issue. Existing or Not.

 

[zhihau]

Your stance is rather neutral.

But I think the onus is on the believers com sellers. The key is the link between tangibles and intangibles. That is how "supernatural entity" sells. That is "the pattern" I was talking about previously.

Being intangible is not the issue. Existing or Not.

then i'm sure you're aware of how the thesis and anti-thesis would take shape when you're proving the non-existence of any entity?

 

[Zombie]

then i'm sure you're aware of how the thesis and anti-thesis would take shape when you're proving the non-existence of any entity?

It's the salesman's responsibility, when he shows you a stone and tells you that he has great faith in the stone's capability in enhancing well-beings. :p

 

[zhihau]

It's the salesman's responsibility, when he shows you a stone and tells you that he has great faith in the stone's capability in enhancing well-beings. :p

no, i'm talking about the logical aspects of formulating a thesis and its anti-thesis.

 

[Zombie]

no, i'm talking about the logical aspects of formulating a thesis and its anti-thesis.

then which illogical aspects are you saying?

 

[zhihau]

then which illogical aspects are you saying?

look, we already know that quantum particles may appear, may not appear, may appear and not appear at the same time, neither appear nor not appear at the same time.

we also know that the only constant is change, thus setting the value of non-existence as in existence, and vice versa.

if the thesis was to be set as such:
If entity X exists, it means there would be a time where entity X had not exist, and there would be a time entity X would cease to exist.

its anti-thesis would be:
If entity X does not exists, it means there would be a time where entity X could come into being, and there would be a time where entity X could stop coming into being.

you'd like to suggest the existence of God? or the non-existence? you decide. :p

 

[NobleEagle]

Whatever happened to Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars? :p

 

[Zombie]

look, we already know that quantum particles may appear, may not appear, may appear and not appear at the same time, neither appear nor not appear at the same time.

we also know that the only constant is change, thus setting the value of non-existence as in existence, and vice versa.

if the thesis was to be set as such:
If entity X exists, it means there would be a time where entity X had not exist, and there would be a time entity X would cease to exist.

its anti-thesis would be:
If entity X does not exists, it means there would be a time where entity X could come into being, and there would be a time where entity X could stop coming into being.

you'd like to suggest the existence of God? or the non-existence? you decide. :p

Thanks for going great length on science.

But if science has solved this mystery, there won't be any left, am I right? Why is there a need to go into it?

Anyway I mentioned "Being intangible is not the issue. Existing or Not."

To me, science is another religion.

 

[zhihau]

Anyway I mentioned "Being intangible is not the issue. Existing or Not."

To me, science is another religion.

i based the hypothesis upon logical and rational thinking, which science is based upon. if logical and rational thinking is another religion to you, then what guides you?

if the article in question being intangible is not the issue, whilst its existence is, how do you come to a conclusion that the article in question does not exist? existence and non-existence are merely opposite sides of the same coin. think about it.

 

[zhihau]

Whatever happened to Women are from Venus and Men are from Mars? :p

:p:p:p XX vs XY :p:p:p

what about the XXX or XXY?

 

[Zombie]

i based the hypothesis upon logical and rational thinking, which science is based upon. if logical and rational thinking is another religion to you, then what guides you?

if the article in question being intangible is not the issue, whilst its existence is, how do you come to a conclusion that the article in question does not exist? existence and non-existence are merely opposite sides of the same coin. think about it.

I have to admit that I am not a science person. All I can say is that the science is not absolute, the coverage is not boundless and it only holds true until it is overturned.

Hypothesis can be based upon Logical/Rational Thinking, which is based upon Observations. But Observations are always/usually limited. The apple that fell on Newton's head was science, still is but it becomes very much more a history when Einstein's imagination came along.

Thus, it is impossible for science to explain everything, especially that something known to the believers as boundless.

Whoever attempts to explain, requires the "leap of faith" - the steroid-boosted belief. And that whole process becomes his religion. :p

So what guides me? Human's Very Basic Common Sense. :p

existence and non-existence are merely opposite sides of the same coin

I got this feeling that I am being tested on "Schrodinger's cat".

I am not a science person. My sincerest reply would be, like the tiny bird in your hand, dead or alive, it's your call. There is no need basis for me to answer. I am sorry to disappoint you.

 

[shining shin]

Therefore, its up the individual to discern whether they are dealing with GOD, the HOLY GHOST or SATURN. Amen.

You mean SATAN right? SATURN is a planet SATAN is the devil...

 

[zhihau]

I got this feeling that I am being tested on "Schrodinger's cat".

you're absolutely right, Science is never absolute and that's the very beauty of it; which is why i've re-iterated so many times and again there's no need to prove or disprove the existence of God. are you sure you've read post26? did you read post22 as well?

Common sense is based on logical and rational thinking too, what are you talking about?

 

[Zombie]

you're absolutely right, Science is never absolute and that's the very beauty of it; which is why i've re-iterated so many times and again there's no need to prove or disprove the existence of God. are you sure you've read post26? did you read post22 as well?

That is why I said your stance is rather neutral.

But my stance is that the responsibility is on the believers who attempts to cross over into the intangibles. And I've made it clear that this cross-over (link into the unknowns) has factored in, the leap of faith that cannot be proven. Therefore there is no need basis for non-believers to disprove anything.

Given your neutral view, you would believe that it is an irony to disprove something, because it adds equal weights to believers' side.

But you did not realise that even holding a neutral view on the non-believer's part, after failing to disprove anything despite exhausting all means including science, is none lesser than adding weights to the believers' side. See the bigger irony?

Common sense is based on logical and rational thinking too, what are you talking about?

Many theories have gone beyond mere common sense, and still waiting to be proven.

That man is human = common sense
That man is human created by the one and only supernatural being = religion

Just like science.

 

[zhihau]

But you did not realise that even holding a neutral view on the non-believer's part, after failing to disprove anything despite exhausting all means including science, is none lesser than adding weights to the believers' side. See the bigger irony?

Many theories have gone beyond mere common sense, and still waiting to be proven.

That man is human = common sense
That man is human created by the one and only supernatural being = religion

Just like science.

i see where you're driving at, but did you read the entire post26 in context? when i can neither start proving nor disproving some functions, how do i even fail it? it's like asking where is north at the north pole, the question would be of no value. thus, the notion to dispel the need of proving and/or disproving the existence of God certainly would not add weight to either camps, but in fact, point the direction towards something more pertinent.

science isn't like religion, in fact, very much the opposite. it is a collaborative human construct, it doesn't get personal, it is tentative and non-absolute, and you can debunk the whole foundation by introducing new notions that functions in the current space and time, provided that the theories introduced can be tested and subjectively falsified.

if common sense to you is something like a man is a human, does that indicate that if the entire populace believe the world is flat, you would believe it too? you mean common sense isn't based on logical and rational deductions?

even thou' many scientific theories are beyond mere logic and senses, that's simply because our knowledge, or so called "common sense" has a limit and science is testing and pushing that very limit. if these theories fail, they do not get assimilated into the mainstream science and they get rejected. what's the problem? it is like religion?

so i guess common sense isn't very common after all?

 

[Zombie]

i see where you're driving at, but did you read the entire post26 in context? when i can neither start proving nor disproving some functions, how do i even fail it? it's like asking where is north at the north pole, the question would be of no value. thus, the notion to dispel the need of proving and/or disproving the existence of God certainly would not add weight to either camps, but in fact, point the direction towards something more pertinent.

I am not a science person, so I think I would not go into that area. :o

I have read post26 and if you like to go into that, well...

You said: "we can't disprove of the unknown. just as anyone could not disprove the existence"
then you said : "do we even have the need to?"​

Your position on disproving - First "cannot" then "no need".
My position on disproving - "No need" no matter what, because it is the believers' duty.

There is a big difference between cannot and need not. See below.

B = Believer
N= Non-Believer​

Scenario 1
B: I believe…
N: Nay
B: Prove me wrong then.
N brings out Quantum Physics to explain that it cannot be done, and so there is no need to...
B: Well ultimately, you are saying you can never prove that I am wrong. Am I right?
N: But? But? But?
B (subconsciously): See, I could be right after all!! *faith gets extra boost*​

Scenario 2
B: I believe…
N: Well, I need not prove anything. But if you want, you prove your point.
B: Well, you see … and with leap of faith, we can conclude that…
N: Stop, prove leap of faith first
B: What?
B (subconsciously): Maybe I need to look into the matter further.​

You are right to say that the question itself has no value, but when a non-believer brings out this question and then adopts the neutral stance, he is adding weights to the believer, giving him more faith. That is the irony.

You may think it is illogical, but that's how this world works.

 

[zhihau]

There is a big difference between cannot and need not. See below.

B = Believer
N= Non-Believer​

Scenario 1
B: I believe…
N: Nay
B: Prove me wrong then.
N brings out Quantum Physics to explain that it cannot be done, and so there is no need to...
B: Well ultimately, you are saying you can never prove that I am wrong. Am I right?
N: But? But? But?
B (subconsciously): See, I could be right after all!! *faith gets extra boost*​

Scenario 2
B: I believe…
N: Well, I need not prove anything. But if you want, you prove your point.
B: Well, you see … and with leap of faith, we can conclude that…
N: Stop, prove leap of faith first
B: What?
B (subconsciously): Maybe I need to look into the matter further.​

You are right to say that the question itself has no value, but when a non-believer brings out this question and then adopts the neutral stance, he is adding weights to the believer, giving him more faith. That is the irony.

You may think it is illogical, but that's how this world works.

when there's no need to, the scenario is more likely like this:

B: i believe.
N: *carries on with his/her own tasks*
B: i BELIEVE.
N: *still carries on with his/her own tasks*
B: I BELIEVE!
N: *still carries on with his/her own tasks*

you see the point?