italo:

That's your assumption and distortion of what my argument is. My argument is: you can't use science to prove or disprove faith because faith transcends the scope of science. Science deals with the physical; faith goes way beyond it.



Not my argument. You are desperately building up arguments that are not mine and tearing down your arguments yourself. My point is: if you must make an attempt to disprove my faith (which is inseparable from what the Bible says), then we must at least mention what the Bible says. When you mentioned "rising from the dead", weren't you referencing what the Bible says? Why can't I do same?



Another dubious effect of your desperation. What have i made up? If I couldn't debate you, I'd not debate you. Simple as that. However, what I am after is not to win any debate. What I'm after is TRUTH.



Yet another dubious effect of your desperation. If you will oppose me, at least oppose what is truly my position. Don't make up what you wish were my opinions and oppose them. I consider every doctor and scientist as an authority of some sort when it comes to the matter we are discussing. But, of course they cannot all agree. So to whom do we go as the final authority on what science says? Its just a question brother, not an ascertion. In fact it is you who tries to deride one doctor's view because it is contrary to yours when you said Dr Tobin was just "carried away."



How can you do that when my first statement to you was:



Did you catch that or did you miss it? MY religion. MY religion!!!

...And my religion has an authority - The Magisterium.



Science is only acceptable if it is true and sincere.



That is NOT what you were first saying. At first you said science says certain things about my faith are false and I was telling you that science cannot say so because faith is beyond its scope. Now what you are saying seems to be a shift in position.

You might say that science doesn't care about my faith (I wonder what that means), but there are many scientists who are people of faith (including mine). Many of them have even been some of the great pioneers in many areas of science.

You tend to forget half the arguments you and I made initially... Or could it be that you didn't think our statements through before posting?

You can twist and turn whichever way you want, but you are in a losing position.


replying to your post will only be tantamount to repeating myself.
now it is about your religion. lol.
except this religion of yours, whatever it is, depends on the bible like hundreds of others, which makes your following assertion false:

italo:
There is nothing in MY religion that teaches against fossils or anything that's true in science.

I would ask you to research the meaning of "fossil" but i guess you will just go into the same fallacy as you did with death.

But for the sake of others reading this thread. Consider this, when you put petrol in your car, you are using fuel generated by decomposed dead animals (and humanoids) that lived on this earth millions of years ago. How does this reconcile with the first story very first book of your religion?

advocate666:
You can twist and turn whichever way you want, but you are in a losing position.

You can accuse me of twisting without providing proof and declare yourself a winner without being able to prove your point; it won't make it true.

replying to your post will only be tantamount to repeating myself.

Replying dishonestly! Replying honestly will be tantamount to admitting to my position.

now it is about your religion. lol.

*Now he's going to pretend like he didn't reading my first post to him, even though I quoted it again*

except this religion of yours, whatever it is, depends on the bible like hundreds of others, which makes your following assertion false:

"...whatever it is..." That's an admission that you don't know what you are even arguing about. You say science disproves MY religion...and you don't know what my religion is. For your information, my religion was in existence before the Bible ever existed (unlike your hundreds of others). To inform you further, my religion created the Bible (unlike your hundreds of others). My religion has the sole authority to explain and teach what the Bible says (unlike your hundreds of others). How then can it be dependent on the Bible? So my assertion is not false. It is your assumption of what my religion teaches that is false.

I would ask you to research the meaning of "fossil" but i guess you will just go into the same fallacy as you did with death.

I never told you what "death" meant to me so how could have ended up with a fallacy on that. I just worked with the definition you gave me so if we ended up with a fallacy, I achieved my objective: to show you how fallacious your argument is.

But for the sake of others reading this thread. Consider this, when you put petrol in your car, you are using fuel generated by decomposed dead animals (and humanoids) that lived on this earth millions of years ago. How does this reconcile with the first story very first book of your religion?

Before I answer your question, for the sake of people reading this thread, I think you should first answer 3 questions I asked you which you haven't answered:

What have I made up (you accused me of making things up)?

Weren't you referencing what the Bible says when you talked about "rising from the dead"? Why can't I do same? *this is even more relevant because you are asking me a question which will make me tell you what the Bible says, then you'll say afterwards that I shouldn't reference the Bible*

Who is the final authority on 'what Science says'?

advocate666:
You can twist and turn whichever way you want, but you are in a losing position.

You can accuse me of twisting without providing proof and declare yourself a winner without being able to prove your point; it won't make it true.

advocate666: replying to your post will only be tantamount to repeating myself.

Replying dishonestly! Replying honestly will be tantamount to admitting to my position.

advocate666: now it is about your religion. lol.

*Now he's going to pretend like he didn't see it in my first post to him, even though I quoted it again*

advocate666: except this religion of yours, whatever it is, depends on the bible like hundreds of others, which makes your following assertion false:

"...whatever it is..." That's an admission that you don't know what you are even arguing about. You say science disproves MY religion...and you don't know what my religion is. For your information, my religion was in existence before the Bible ever existed (unlike your hundreds of others). To inform you further, my religion created the Bible (unlike your hundreds of others). My religion has the sole authority to explain and teach what the Bible says (unlike your hundreds of others). How then can it be dependent on the Bible? So my assertion is not false. It is your assumption of what my religion teaches that is false.

advocate666: I would ask you to research the meaning of "fossil" but i guess you will just go into the same fallacy as you did with death.

I never told you what "death" meant to me so how could have ended up with a fallacy on that. I just worked with the definition you gave me so if we ended up with a fallacy, I achieved my objective: to show you how fallacious your argument is.

advocate666: But for the sake of others reading this thread. Consider this, when you put petrol in your car, you are using fuel generated by decomposed dead animals (and humanoids) that lived on this earth millions of years ago. How does this reconcile with the first story very first book of your religion?

Before I answer your question, for the sake of people reading this thread, I think you should first answer 3 questions I asked you which you haven't answered:

What have I made up (you accused me of making things up)?

Weren't you referencing what the Bible says when you talked about "rising from the dead"? Why can't I do same? *this is even more relevant because you are asking me a question which will make me tell you what the Bible says, then you'll say afterwards that I shouldn't reference the Bible*

Who is the final authority on 'what Science says'?

italo:

You can accuse me of twisting without providing proof and declare yourself a winner without being able to prove your point; it won't make it true.



Replying dishonestly! Replying honestly will be tantamount to admitting to my position.



*Now he's going to pretend like he didn't see it in my first post to him, even though I quoted it again*



"...whatever it is..." That's an admission that you don't know what you are even arguing about. You say science disproves MY religion...and you don't know what my religion is. For your information, my religion was in existence before the Bible ever existed (unlike your hundreds of others). To inform you further, my religion created the Bible (unlike your hundreds of others). My religion has the sole authority to explain and teach what the Bible says (unlike your hundreds of others). How then can it be dependent on the Bible? So my assertion is not false. It is your assumption of what my religion teaches that is false.



I never told you what "death" meant to me so how could have ended up with a fallacy on that. I just worked with the definition you gave me so if we ended up with a fallacy, I achieved my objective: to show you how fallacious your argument is.



Before I answer your question, for the sake of people reading this thread, I think you should first answer 3 questions I asked you which you haven't answered:

What have I made up (you accused me of making things up)?

Weren't you referencing what the Bible says when you talked about "rising from the dead"? Why can't I do same? *this is even more relevant because you are asking me a question which will make me tell you what the Bible says, then you'll say afterwards that I shouldn't reference the Bible*

Who is the final authority on 'what Science says'?

Debating you is like trying to catch a rattlesnake that fell into vegetable oil: you twist and turn and slip and slither.

You are asking me to answer three questions when you have not even answered the very first question I asked you:

advocate666:

Try religiously explaining fossils. (dinosaurs)

I admit I may have assumed your religion to be something else, so if you can please enlighten us on your faith that created the bible, maybe we can understand you better because right now you make absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Your using the bible to justify the bible because I mentionned the bible makes no sense at all.

The fact that you claim that your religion created the bible disqualifies the bible as an authority on this debate.

I asked you to be specific but you fire in all direction hoping that something will stick. When it doesn't stick you claim it is because your faith and science are not on the same level. Well you are right, they are not. Science is fact, your faith is deluded wishful thinking.

Answer my first question and I'll answer yours.

I told you there is nothing in my religion that teaches against fossils or anything that's true in science. That was my answer to you. Then you made a list of things you think my religion is wrong on and after I gave a general comment you complained.

I then went on to argue on "rising from death" specifically - for a start. And you left some of my questions in that argument unanswered only to move to another sub-topic.

Its okay if you don't want to answer. But don't expect me to move on to something else without you dealing with those questions.

You cannot expect me to address your questions while you conveniently evade mine.

You are free to go away with the imaginary gold medal that you seemingly crave.

Congratulations!

italo: I told you there is nothing in my religion that teaches against fossils or anything that's true in science. That was my answer to you. Then you made a list of things you think my religion is wrong on and after I gave a general comment you complained.

I then went on to argue on "rising from death" specifically - for a start. And you left some of my questions in that argument unanswered only to move to another sub-topic.

Its okay if you don't want to answer. But don't expect me to move on to something else without you dealing with those questions.

You cannot expect me to address your questions while you conveniently evade mine.

You are free to go away with the imaginary gold medal that you seemingly crave.

Congratulations!

Please tell us before running away. What is this special religion of yours?

To answer your three questions, here goes:
1- There are numerous examples here of you making things up. Like when you said that doctors said Muamba rose from dead. (lie. only one doctor Tobin said : "In effect he was dead in that time," ). Or when you claimed Dr. Tobin had documented evidence.
2- With reference to the bible, it is the book you are using to justify the same book. It is like a snake eating its own tail. I'm just saying "watch out"!
Put it another way. If I tell you that my phone took pictures of the other side of the moon when I was inside my bedroom and I can see the bugs living there? Will you believe me? Really? Why not? What if I show you the pictures in my phone? Will you believe? What if I can get an astronomer to "confirm" the story? Why won't you believe?
3- The final authority on what science says is empirical verifiable/observable evidence. The main thing your religious authority lack.

advocate666: To answer your three questions, here goes:
1- There are numerous examples here of you making things up. Like when you said that doctors said Muamba rose from dead. (lie. only one doctor Tobin said : "In effect he was dead in that time," ). Or when you claimed Dr. Tobin had documented evidence.

Okay, sorry. The doctor that treated Fabrice, the one in charge of the team of doctors that treated him, the one whom I believe would have the authority to make a public and official statement about the case, said! I hope that is not also a lie.

Are you saying the doctor that treated Fabrice didn't have documented evidence on the case? I can't believe this?

advocate666: 2- With reference to the bible, it is the book you are using to justify the same book. It is like a snake eating its own tail. I'm just saying "watch out"!
Put it another way. If I tell you that my phone took pictures of the other side of the moon when I was inside my bedroom and I can see the bugs living there? Will you believe me? Really? Why not? What if I show you the pictures in my phone? Will you believe? What if I can get an astronomer to "confirm" the story? Why won't you believe?

Pointless. I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm telling you what I believe and saying science cannot disprove what I believe. You keep missing or forgetting the very argument.

advocate666: 3- The final authority on what science says is empirical verifiable/observable evidence. The main thing your religious authority lack.

Empirical evidence can never be an authority because you need someone to analyze and explain empirical evidence of anything and its implications. With all the empirical evidence in the world there are Scientists who don't believe Jesus rose and there are those who do. This shows that different scientists have understood the evidence in different ways, how then can the evidence be an authority. But even those who don't believe Jesus rose cannot give evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead. There just isn't a scientist that has or can prove that Jesus didn't resurrect from the tomb in Jerusalem 2000yrs ago. Give me his name if you have it.

...And I'm Catholic.

italo:

...And I'm Catholic.

there!

lol!

hahahaha

italo:

Okay, sorry. The doctor that treated Fabrice, the one in charge of the team of doctors that treated him, the one whom I believe would have the authority to make a public and official statement about the case, said! I hope that is not also a lie.

Are you saying the doctor that treated Fabrice didn't have documented evidence on the case? I can't believe this?

Ok. Apology accepted. Just don't make things up next time, ok?

No. You are saying he has documented evidence. (of death, I assume)

italo:
Pointless. I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm telling you what I believe and saying science cannot disprove what I believe. You keep missing or forgetting the very argument.

Why are you telling people what you believe if you are not asking them to believe? Stop lying to yourself. In anycase I already told you that science doesn't care what you believe. (Killing Galileo didn't make the sun start going around flat earth)
Your faith cannot prove or disprove anything, which renders it completely useless.
If you had taken care to answer my question you would have understood that the inability to disprove some unverified notion doesn't make that notion necessarily true.

italo:

Empirical evidence can never be an authority because you need someone to analyze and explain empirical evidence of anything and its implications. With all the empirical evidence in the world there are Scientists who don't believe Jesus rose and there are those who do. This shows that different scientists have understood the evidence in different ways, how then can the evidence be an authority. But even those who don't believe Jesus rose cannot give evidence that Jesus did not rise from the dead. There just isn't a scientist that has or can prove that Jesus didn't resurrect from the tomb in Jerusalem 2000yrs ago. Give me his name if you have it.

argumentum ad verecundiam

advocate666:

Ok. Apology accepted. Just don't make things up next time, ok?

I didn't deliberately make it up. I already explained what I meant by "doctors" and I thought you would understand it without my having to explain. Obviously not.

advocate666:
No. You are saying he has documented evidence. (of death, I assume)

Your assumption was wrong, as usual... And I'm not calling you a liar for saying that I lied over this issue.

advocate666:
Why are you telling people what you believe if you are not asking them to believe? Stop lying to yourself.

My friend, your whole argument is full of wild assumptions. I am not telling or trying to make you believe what I believe. Simple. I'm telling you what I believe because you told me that science declares my faith as wrong without even knowing my faith/religion.

advocate666:
In anycase I already told you that science doesn't care what you believe. (Killing Galileo didn't make the sun start going around flat earth)

And I already told you that I don't know what that means, as science is not a person. But I know many Catholic scientists who are/were some of the giants of science through history (including Galileo). These scientists certainly cared about what I believe.

advocate666:
Your faith cannot prove or disprove anything, which renders it completely useless.

It can/has proved things to us so it is very useful to us. Infact it is very essential to our lives. It only seems useless to you because you have closed your mind and spirit to it. You are like a blind man who expects someone to prove to him that the sky is blue.

advocate666:
If you had taken care to answer my question you would have understood that the inability to disprove some unverified notion doesn't make that notion necessarily true.

Good! True! Then you must agree that the inability to prove some unverified/verified notion doesn't make that notion false.

TRUE or FALSE?

advocate666:
argumentum ad verecundiam

Its not always a bad thing. Its okay if the authority in question is a subject-matter expert and/or there is a concensus among experts.

^^^ you are full of it.
i give up.

.

I think this is the wisest thing you've done on this thread. I usually stay away from arguments I know little about too... Only, in my case, I don't even enter into it in the first place, much less start it.

If you can reason with religious people, there will be no religious people.