Nah dude I read your posts, they don't spell it out as clearly as I did. I'm improving upon your views bruh.
Someone address the massive inconsistencies in this link: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html The Bible was written poorly and I don't take it seriously. Omg one of those fake Libertarian Ayn Rand things right? No wonder you're so war hungry. Just messing with you.
Objective truth about what, exactly? That God has been "proven" not to exist? Sorry, there's no proof of that, whatsoever.
you're self-admittedly not concerned with proof, so why bother to comment on whether there is or not?
Yes. Always an ongoing process, though. I try to read portion every day. It's great reading. Yes. All of it. I make it my effort to, yes. However, even as Paul describes in Romans 7, it's an impossibility to adhere to all of it...all the time. (It's why Christ came. He's my advocate and ultimate "Savior". It's not about "rule following".) Inconsistencies? Jesus didn't contradict the Old Testament. He was God's solution to fix the mess that resulted in Adam & Eve's rebellion.
Yup. Unfortunately, the work done to try and unify them gave us string theory which makes general relativity look like a coloring book in complexity.
Not exactly, though no two people can literally see the same thing since different photons hit each's eye. I'm thinking more about frame of reference. It could be that everything was blue shifted 100,000,000 years ago, but since nobody was around to detect it, we simply don't know that reality. Not saying its likely, just we take some things on faith. Ya know?
Please prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. He works through other people. He was written about in the santa bible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Visit_from_St._Nicholas
no i don't know. science doesn't take anything on faith in any sense that corresponds to religious faith.
Ok, I'll put it a different way. The universe might be many times larger than we perceive it to be, but we only know what's going on for as far as we can see. The age of what we see might be 13.7B years, but what's beyond might be significantly older or even newer.
there are many things we don't or can't know. science doesn't pretend to know things it can't (unlike theists).
I get that, but what we perceive as reality simply may not be. As I pointed out, when people believed the sun revolved around the earth, sailors were able to navigate by the stars. The reality was "good enough" to make navigation possible, but wasn't even close to what we now believe to be reality. We take, on faith, that the speed of light is the maximum speed limit of anything, and we base a LOT of theory on that. If it turns out to not be true, that the speed of light is something we currently don't really understand, the rest is a house of cards. It is our best faith guesstimate, the best we can do, sure. Like I said, "reality" has to be part of the discussion. (And "something we don't or can't know" is what people are arguing that God is one of those things)
accepting the best current evidence for reality as a matter of practicality doesn't correspond to believing in a religion based on faith. ABM isn't concerned with evidence at all. who's arguing that? not ABM.
Ah, but what you accept as evidence and what he accepts are different, but not unreasonable. God made the butterfly. We see the butterfly. How can it be denied? The butterfly IS the evidence. It's not how I think about things, but I can see how someone else might.
Not really. First of all, we don't take it 'on faith' that the speed of light is the maximum speed. That is not an article of faith, but rather a result of reason. The reasoning may turn out to be faulty or incomplete, but it is reason, not faith. Secondly, if the speed of light is exceeded by some particle, that doesn't overturn all existing physics, or even all existing particle physics. Most likely, it would be that there was some special case or conditions that the current equations didn't consider. It wouldn't mean that everything we've learned about nature is wrong. It would just mean that our prior theory was incomplete. Science isn't an all-or-nothing proposition like modern-day religion. Science can add or discard things as needed. barfo
When is the last time you personally verified what the speed of light is? Or do you accept what it is on faith?
