To arkathon:
Thank you for your reply.
Reply to your post:
Creation of the world was laid out in detail. What came first, man and woman, timeframe, etc.
Like I said, "mix dough, bake and serve". Where is the detail? We're talking "how", not "what" or "why". You have failed to answer the question entirely.
Good bad knowledge? If it goes against man, enslaving or killing or infecting him. ( bio nuclear warfare etc, mind control)Genetical monstrosities - tinkering with God's creation. Good? how about some medical things, pasteurization, cures, etc. Then there is just knowledge, say not so bad or good, but too much for a sinful fallen man, who will use it badly.
You really have NO idea, do you? All knowledge falls into the category you called "not so bad or good". Like someone has already mentioned in this thread, it is the individual who pulls the trigger of a loaded gun that kills a person, not the gun itself. Knowledge does NOTHING on its own. Whether it is used for good (nuclear power stations, radiotherapy, etc.) or bad (nuclear warheads, radioactive waste dirty bomb, etc.) is dependent on WHO uses it. You are one confused puppy.
Circular reason? Basically someone's view of belief in God, who omits healings, prophesy fulfillments, miracles, answered prayers, angelic help, etc as evidence, and thinks God is not the center of the circle, so thinks it is objective to call it that.
Great. So you don't even know what circular reasoning is. *sigh* I rest my case.
Sorry to hear that. But I am afraid unbelievers will always have problems.
You misunderstood. The problem is with the supported claims (including yours). The receiver of this claim, whether it be believers, non-believers, or noble metals, is irrelevant to the validity (or lack of) of the claim itself.
Jesus said preach the gospel to every creature, not only if you are a superman in believing every jot and tittle. So I guess He doesn't really heed you either. Perhaps you ougta try heeding Him!
I don't see the relevance of this point. Is this cannon fodder?
So what? You saying it's all good and helpful? Porn, air pollution, war? There is both good and evil.
Which of the following is evil: a butcher knife, or the murderer who killed 29 individuals with it?
Similarly, which of the following is evil: a nuclear warhead, or the politician who exploded it over an enemy city, killing millions?
And exactly HOW is porn scientific? You seem to classify all items you view immoral as scientific in nature.
Your arguments astound me.
Gee, this is all news to me, only the physical exists, and is real, or important. By the way, do you have a brain? Of course, or you could not write. Do you have thoughts? Can you prove it to me physically? Are they all good thoughts? Could these thoughts be influenced in any way by forces you can not touch? Did you ever love anyone, say a mother? Can you touch love? Is it real?
Well no. Science is not stating that only the physical exist. It merely dismisses metaphysical items as unsupported by physical evidence (which is quite natural, otherwise it won't be "metaphysical" now, would it?). Science is not concerned with importance, that's a subjective concept.
As for your example, yes I believe I have a brain (though I've never seen it). If you want me to prove it to you, I guess you can ask medical surgeons to slice open my head and take a peek. Either way you would agree that my claim (that I have a brain) is falsifiable.
Thoughts? If you define thoughts as changes in neural activities that lead to changes in behaviours, then there is ample evidence to suggest the existence of thoughts.
EEGs changes between relaxed and intense concentration, blood sugar usage in the brain during different activities, as well as psychological disorders which affects the process of coherent thoughts are all evidence of "thoughts". It is abstract and intangible, but it is still a physical phenomenon, so we expect to find physical evidence in support for its existence.
It may seem blasphemous to you, but scientific (or psychological, to be precise) theories have been formulated to explain love as a by-product of environmental stimulus/biological responses associations and biochemical (hormonal) factors. Much attention has focused on the the phenomena of physical attraction, and it is unsure if more intimate elements of human romantic relationships may be revealed by future research.
And so you see, your opinion appears to be based upon a foundation of knowledge that is hopelessly lacking in the scientific department. If you want to debate some more on this, please read up on the current theories and definition/limitations of science. At this point in time, your "theory" is laughably inadequate.
Patiently awaiting your reply.
"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"
™ Version 4.2