It should have been obvious that I was speaking in quantitative terms, since qualitative is subjective.

The supernatural created the natural, therefore the Book of Genesis can be taken as historical. I don't agree with Campbell, I feel that comparative mythology has been thoroughly debunked.

Love is sex, eh? I'd hate to be invited to your house for Thanksgiving.

"I've missed you mom and dad..."

I shudder to think.

You admit you can't answer my question, which means your point is invalid. Why would anyone make a historical claim knowing that he can't back it up? Don't bother replying, I don't plan to say anything else to you.

Christianity has taught me to question everything and demand proof. I want to know during what time period did the Catholic church "outlawed any science that didn't glorify god" and when was "back then"?

Two words: Historical Revisionism.

Two more words: Back when?

Three seconds which I'd never get back and effort for which I wouldn't be thanked. If you really wanted the answer, you'd look at my past posts.

Good science isn't based on consensus, nor is it a popularity contest.

How many scientists were studying Quantum theory 200 years ago? None? Welp, that means Quantum theory is bunk. How many scientists were studying Plate Tectonics 500 years ago? None? Welp, now we have our proof that the earth's plates have never moved. The point, in case you aren't getting the sarcasm, is that just because the majority or even a significant minority of scientists aren't pursuing a particular theory, doesn't mean the theory isn't true.

Why on God's green earth would I want to repeat myself? If you could trouble yourself to read what I have posted, you'd have your answer.

You were 20 years old at the time, why didn't you pay?

That depends. For me, I wouldn't be with a woman who would prefer an expensive gift over something sentimental. So I'd say something that makes you think of him or would remind him of you.

I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with other parts. This idea that religion and science are opposed, that's only held by people who are uneducated on both. Science describes the natural world, religion the supernatural world. Ain't no conflict in believing in both, regardless of what those who never cracked a Bible open in their life would tell you. If you accept that both worlds may exist, it's not a question of which system is more accurate, it becomes a question of if you will follow the evidence where it leads.

Thank you for your response, I got a kick out of it.

Boy, you are a soul. Your body is how your soul moves around in this world.

If you want to know the truth, start praying with an open heart. Pray every day for 30 days, asking God to reveal himself to you. And while you are at it, start reading the New Testament.

Why should you care what the Greeks thought? And what do you mean Jesus was effeminate? He was the most manly man ever. He had the power to kill anyone who wished him harm, he had the power to heal himself, but he chose to die for our sins. That take cajones like you can't even imagine.

You gotta try reading what I post. I'm actually quite brilliant.

For a scientist to prove that a bacteria exists, he doesn't have to offer anything more than the bacteria. He doesn't need all of the information about where it lives, how it evolved, etc. He can later do all that other research or leave it up to others.

But of course, that wasn't the point, it was an example. The brute fact exists that you don't need the explanation of an explanation to accept a theory. If you start demanding an explanation of every explanation BEFORE a theory would be accepted, then you create an infinite regress.

If scientists had demanded an explanation for the theory of evolution, before they would accept it, it would still be ignored. Science can't explain how the first DNA formed. Science can't explain how the first genes were built. Science can't explain where life came from.

You are welcome to come back with another sophomoric response, hell, I'll probably get a kick out of reading it. But trust me on this, I'm right on the whole explanation of the explanation thing.

You don't need an explanation of the explanation to accept the most plausible explanation of an event. You are proposing an infinite regress. It's like if a scientist found a new bacteria and had to not just prove it existed, but prove it's life cycle, place in the Eco-system, evolutionary history, etc, just to have other scientists admit it exists.

You can accept that a god who fits the criteria (I have mentioned repeatedly) exists, such a god would fully explain the existence of the universe and be what Plato called "the first mover", without building a religion around it. Hell, some of the Greek philosophers believed in a creator god, but they didn't even worship him!

You are just putting up new hoops to jump through, before you'll accept the obvious answer to the existence of everything. You should put your thinkin cap on and try to figure out why that is.

Well lookee there. You made 3 statements and all of them were false. That's called a trifecta.

Ain't you the one who wrote " "If there was another explanation, I ought to be able to think of it." This is incredible hubris."? Because some scientist today can't think of a way of testing the theory, doesn't mean nobody can think of a way of testing. And what do we put in place of the theory that God created the universe? Nothing. So it's an acceptance of no theory, over the only plausible theory.



I've stated the qualities that would be required for a god to cause the big bang: space-less, time-less and incredibly powerful. That eliminates almost all religions. We can' write Odin off the list, because Odin was never described as any of those things. We end up with Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The argument doesn't take us any further than that. It don't matter how good your car is, it'll run out of gas eventually.

No he wouldn't. Newton's writings on science are only outweighed by his writings on religion. That's like saying a man is leaving his wife because he goes to work for eight hours a day.

In Newton's time, theology was called the queen of the sciences. Every western scientist was also a theologian, at least in training, if not practice. There is only one reason to study the laws of the universe: you believe in the law maker.

God explains the big bang perfectly, God fits all the criteria of being time-less, space-less and incredibly powerful. God also explains the timing of the creation. See if the cause of the universe wasn't personal, then both the cause and the effect would exist simultaneously. So why isn't God an acceptable theory in this case? Which isn't to say "stop the science". Newton believed in God, but he tried to understand Gravity. Galileo believed in God, but he tried to understand the universe. It's this dogged desire to not accept the perfect theory, which shows incredible hubris.