Christianity Versus Science

They've already been asked, and openly admit that they believe their own claims as well as the claims of many of their peers as well thus proving your claims false. Scientists believe what they know without seeing which is effectively no different than believing without seeing.
Actually, you just described knowing without seeing.
Christianity:
"VERB

  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

LOL. Your argument just caved in on itself. Q.E.D.

This isn't logic. This is your meaning of logic which isn't logical at all.
There's nothing wrong with defining Christianity that way. It's not a commonly accepted definition, but there's no way to prove it wrong. You appear to assume that since a definition is not commonly accepted, then it must be wrong. That's a non sequitur fallacy because that which is not commonly accepted is not necessarily wrong.

By the way, the fallacy of calling definitions right or wrong is very common. People seem to think that word definitions somehow are taken from the very fabric of reality, but they are really just human inventions.
Why wouldn't he, he's actually talking to God. Unlike you and your cohorts who are talking to yourselves, the text explicitly states that Abraham is talking with God. Nowhere does it say that Abraham is imaging a conversation with his imaginary deity or idol. Abraham believes what God tells him because he has no reason to believe God is a liar as this would negate the meaning of the term. A god who lies is no god at all.
That's all beside the point. We are told that Abraham believed God without seeing what God promised Abraham. So you are wrong to say that nowhere in the Bible is anybody expected to believe without seeing.
Thomas believes what he already sees just like everyone else in the bible.
Yes, but again, Christ admonished Thomas to believe without seeing.
Google? This is you idea of a resource??? LOL. smh.
But you use Google.

By the way, I find Google to be very helpful in my math and logic studies. Just today, for example, I discovered that Google can be used to see if a given number is prime.
See above, and note that one cannot construct an idol without using theirs or someone else's imagination.
Some idols are not constructed. Did you ever hear of a "teen idol"?
Fallacy of the hasty generalization. Just because some cancer cells die, it doesn't then follow that all other cancer cells are unable to adapt to their surrounding environment. Regardless, you're still moving the goalposts as well as this doesn't really address the fact that cancer cells THRIVE WITHOUT OXYGEN which refutes your claim that they must have oxygen to support life.
I don't recall saying that oxygen is necessary for cancer cells to live but that photosynthesis is necessary for them to live.
Your understanding is false and stems from ignorance of the commonly accepted definition of the word. There are cancer cells which are alive today from people who are long dead and gone and they continue to live due to the fact that they CANNOT AGE. Ageless is synonymous with immortality.
That's an amazing claim.
Again, claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
That's why I dismiss most of yours. "Immortal cancer cells"? LOL
Be that as it may, your personal opinion doesn't refute any of my ideas.
Nor yours mine.
False. Sequencing DNA doesn't present any evolutionary theories much less the "Mechanism" itself.
Sequencing DNA provides important information regarding gene transfer from generation to generation--the very basis of evolution.
False. I pointed out that your ability to prove mathematical theorems has nothing to do with proving the claims of your OP. You've admitted as much already.
Hmmm. I'm wondering what in this latest post of yours that you will deny saying later.
And your brand of science is no different than Christianity in that they're both based upon belief in what you know isn't seen.
But Christianity claims Jesus rose from the dead. Science has never reached that conclusion.
 
Actually, you just described knowing without seeing.
Yep, and scientists believe what they know without seeing, hence they're no different than those who believe without seeing.
There's nothing wrong with defining Christianity that way.
I never said there was. I'm simply pointing out that this disproves your OP. You've conceded the argument by admitting that there's nothing wrong with defining Christianity and science the same. Q.E.D.
That's all beside the point. We are told that Abraham believed God without seeing what God promised Abraham.
God tells Abraham to pull up stakes and move away from his homeland. He doesn't even tell him where to go. He just tells him to head in the general direction in which he's pointing. Abraham isn't doing what he's told due to some promise God makes to him. Abraham is doing what God tells him to do because Abraham is being told to do something by God. Abraham has enough sense to know that when the creator of the universe tells you to do something, you do it.

For example, God tells Abraham to cut off the foreskin of his penis. Abraham doesn't blink, or balk or hesitate. He just cuts it off and spends the next few days in agonizing pain. Even after this, he still does whatever God tells him to do, not for any payoff, but because the Creator of the universe is telling him what to do.
Yes, but again, Christ admonished Thomas to believe without seeing.
No, he didn't. Jesus made a simple observation, and the gospel writer is telling his readers that they are blessed if they believe without seeing.
But you use Google.
For entertainment purposes only.
Some idols are not constructed. Did you ever hear of a "teen idol"?
A teen idol is only an idol in the minds of those who idolize them. Again, this is right in line with the etymology and meaning of the term which I already provided for your edification.
I don't recall...
Then you should review your own posts again.
That's an amazing claim.
Yes, it is quite amazing. It's also somewhat well known among cancer specialists as well as people who are seeking to extend their own lives. Scientists have removed the nucleus of cancer cells and transplanted them into normal cells, and vice versa with interesting results. The cancer cells behave as normal, and the normal cells behave as cancer cells.
That's why I dismiss most of yours. "Immortal cancer cells"? LOL
When you learn to do rudimentary research, you'll see that your dismissive handwaving is pointless.
Sequencing DNA provides important information regarding gene transfer from generation to generation--the very basis of evolution.
Yep, and yet just like the Creationist who cannot present their Creator, you're still not presenting the Mechanism itself.
But Christianity claims Jesus rose from the dead. Science has never reached that conclusion.
Yet another pointless tangent. Christianity claimed the sun revolved around the earth, and science agreed until they changed their mind. Moreover, science doesn't address theological claims anyways which is why I'm addressing the claims of your OP instead.
 
Yep, and scientists believe what they know without seeing, hence they're no different than those who believe without seeing.
The phrase "believe what they know" is strange. Of course scientists believe what they know. How can anybody not believe what they know?
I never said there was. I'm simply pointing out that this disproves your OP. You've conceded the argument by admitting that there's nothing wrong with defining Christianity and science the same. Q.E.D.
I didn't mention word definitions in the OP. I described and contrasted the approach to truth on the part of science and Christianity using the common understanding of what both are. Unlike word definitions, descriptions can clearly be right or wrong. For example, to describe a red ball as a blue cube is clearly wrong assuming we use the common notions of "red," "ball," "blue," and "cube."
God tells Abraham to pull up stakes and move away from his homeland. He doesn't even tell him where to go. He just tells him to head in the general direction in which he's pointing. Abraham isn't doing what he's told due to some promise God makes to him. Abraham is doing what God tells him to do because Abraham is being told to do something by God. Abraham has enough sense to know that when the creator of the universe tells you to do something, you do it.
Abraham "believed God" too. You omitted that part.
No, he didn't. Jesus made a simple observation, and the gospel writer is telling his readers that they are blessed if they believe without seeing.
Right, so it's safe to assume that Thomas henceforth took Jesus' advice to believe without seeing. Thomas wanted to be blessed, of course, and to be blessed, he then realized he must believe without seeing.
A teen idol is only an idol in the minds of those who idolize them. Again, this is right in line with the etymology and meaning of the term which I already provided for your edification.
Some idols are real people. Did you ever hear of David Cassidy?
Yes, it is quite amazing. It's also somewhat well known among cancer specialists as well as people who are seeking to extend their own lives. Scientists have removed the nucleus of cancer cells and transplanted them into normal cells, and vice versa with interesting results. The cancer cells behave as normal, and the normal cells behave as cancer cells.
If you're right about the immortality of cancer cells, then they will survive the heat death of the universe. That's about as ridiculous as to say that science and Christianity are identical!
Yep, and yet just like the Creationist who cannot present their Creator, you're still not presenting the Mechanism itself.
There's really no problem with creationists being unable to present their creator. A lot of things are created, yet their creators are not presentable. I exist, for example, but neither of my parents are presentable because they are both dead.
Yet another pointless tangent. Christianity claimed the sun revolved around the earth, and science agreed until they changed their mind. Moreover, science doesn't address theological claims anyways which is why I'm addressing the claims of your OP instead.
Yes--science doesn't normally address theological claims, but Christianity addresses theological claims all the time. That's a major difference between them, and your crackpot idea that they are the same is disproved by yourself!

So there you go, Schnark. Please post some more fallacies and fabrications, and I'll correct them too.
 
And without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb 11
Abraham "believed God" too. You omitted that part.
Abraham believed the Lord, and because of his faith in the Lord, he was accepted. Gen 15:6

Know therefore that those who believe are the sons of Abraham. Gal 3:7
 
Last edited:
The phrase "believe what they know" is strange. Of course scientists believe what they know.
Thus there is no effective difference between them and the believer.
How can anybody not believe what they know?
It's quite simple really. I know that you think there is this vast difference between science and religion. I know your claims, yet I don't believe them.
I didn't mention word definitions in the OP.
You've made it quite clear that definitions are of no consequence and are quite arbitrary so it makes sense that you wouldn't mention any.
I described and contrasted the approach to truth on the part of science and Christianity using the common understanding of what both are.
Science's goal isn't to seek truth whereas Christian texts explicitly point out that it is the truth that will set you free. Science doesn't even believe anyone is in bondage, and isn't interested in freeing people from bondage in the first place.

truth (n.)​

Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant," from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith," from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast."

science:
"NOUN

  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment:"

Unlike word definitions, descriptions can clearly be right or wrong.
A distinction with no effective difference. There is no effective difference between defining and describing. They are synonymous.

Define:
"synonyms
explain · expound · interpret · elucidate · explicate · DESCRIBE"
For example, to describe a red ball as a blue cube is clearly wrong assuming we use the common notions of "red," "ball," "blue," and "cube."

Abraham "believed God" too. You omitted that part.
It's a Given. It goes without saying.
Right, so it's safe to assume that Thomas henceforth took Jesus' advice to believe without seeing.
No one who is in possession of the truth would believe a lie whether they see or not. The truth is evident at all times and everywhere. One can only believe the truth when the truth is present to them. Thomas didn't believe the truth because he couldn't without seeing it. The truth had to be present before him. Only then can one believe it regardless of whether they see it or not.
Thomas wanted to be blessed, of course, and to be blessed, he then realized he must believe without seeing.
Anyone who sees the truth is blessed. There are no more blessings necessary when one sees the truth. However, when one cannot see the truth, but believes the truth they live as one who does see the truth, and therefore there is no effective difference between them.
Some idols are real people. Did you ever hear of David Cassidy?
Only in the mind of the idolater. See the difference yet???
If you're right about the immortality of cancer cells, then they will survive the heat death of the universe.
Non Sequitur and yet another pointless tangent from your original claim which was that without oxygen there is no life. I have refuted that claim by presenting you with the example of cancer.
That's about as ridiculous as to say that science and Christianity are identical!
By your logic, they are identical. You're the one who said these meanings are arbitrary.
There's really no problem with creationists being unable to present their creator.
I never said there was. I'm simply pointing out that the standard that is required by science doesn't apply to their "Mechanism" of evolution.
A lot of things are created, yet their creators are not presentable.
No one cares. The point here is that there's a double standard, and I'm pointing out that double standard.
I exist, for example, but neither of my parents are presentable because they are both dead.
Given cell division, it doesn't matter. Not one single cell in your body was produced by your parents.
Yes--science doesn't normally address theological claims, but Christianity addresses theological claims all the time.
They also address quite astute observations as well. Regardless, your interpretation of science is right in line with the definition of Christian faith.
That's a major difference between them, and your crackpot idea
Mr. needlessly victimized and persecuted feels it necessary to refer to the posts of others as "crackpot ideas". Nice. Perhaps someday, you'll become aware of what it truly means to treat other as you would want to be treated yourself. Until then, you're nothing but a transparent, hypocritical poser.
 
Unknown Soldier said:
How can anybody not believe what they know?
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, Rom 1:22-21
Only in the mind of the idolater.
Keep yourselves from idols.
Anyone who sees the truth is blessed.
But blessed are your eyes because they see, Matt 13:11-17

Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it; Matt 16:16-18
 
It's quite simple really. I know that you think there is this vast difference between science and religion. I know your claims, yet I don't believe them.
I was referring to an individual person believing what that person knows not what another person knows.
You've made it quite clear that definitions are of no consequence and are quite arbitrary so it makes sense that you wouldn't mention any.
That's only half true. You are confusing arbitrary with inconsequential. Although word definitions are freely chosen (arbitrary) they are hardly without impact (inconsequential).
Science's goal isn't to seek truth...
Where do you get this nonsense? Scientists have sought truth for thousands of years.
...whereas Christian texts explicitly point out that it is the truth that will set you free.
How is that seeking truth?
Science doesn't even believe anyone is in bondage, and isn't interested in freeing people from bondage in the first place.
Charles Darwin and Benjamin Banneker, both scientists, opposed slavery.
A distinction with no effective difference. There is no effective difference between defining and describing. They are synonymous.
Word definitions and descriptions of persons, places, times, and things are actually very distinct. Word definitions are short explanations of what a word means while descriptions are lists of a thing's properties.
No one who is in possession of the truth would believe a lie whether they see or not. The truth is evident at all times and everywhere. One can only believe the truth when the truth is present to them.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Thomas didn't believe the truth because he couldn't without seeing it. The truth had to be present before him. Only then can one believe it regardless of whether they see it or not.
I've believed a lot of truths prior to seeing those truths.
Anyone who sees the truth is blessed. There are no more blessings necessary when one sees the truth.
Wrong and wrong.
Only in the mind of the idolater. See the difference yet???
I proved that idols like David Cassidy are real people, and you respond with this. I don't know what you're talking about.
Non Sequitur and yet another pointless tangent from your original claim which was that without oxygen there is no life. I have refuted that claim by presenting you with the example of cancer.
By your logic cancer cells, being immortal, will survive the heat death of the universe. It follows deductively.
By your logic, they are identical. You're the one who said these meanings are arbitrary.
Word definitions are arbitrary whereas descriptions of the differences in the logic employed by science and Christianity are not arbitrary.
The point here is that there's a double standard, and I'm pointing out that double standard.
What double standard? Your posts are so often way too vague. Please spell out what you are referring to.
Given cell division, it doesn't matter. Not one single cell in your body was produced by your parents.
That's beside my point. My parents are still my creators, yet they are not presentable. We can know creators exist without being presented with them.
They also address quite astute observations as well. Regardless, your interpretation of science is right in line with the definition of Christian faith.
No, I just got done explaining a major difference between science and Christianity. To say that science and Christianity are identical is demonstrably false.
Mr. needlessly victimized and persecuted feels it necessary to refer to the posts of others as "crackpot ideas".
If your ideas aren't crackpot ideas, then no ideas are crackpot ideas.
Nice. Perhaps someday, you'll become aware of what it truly means to treat other as you would want to be treated yourself.
This is a debate forum, and any argument you make is fair game for criticism. If you're easily hurt by people criticizing your ideas, then you're in the wrong place. Are you seeking compliments for your ideas?
Until then, you're nothing but a transparent, hypocritical poser.
You're making a very common mistake in your debating here. Criticizing ideas and arguments like I do is at the very heart of debates and is entirely proper while engaging in childish character assassination and name calling like you just did is quite improper.
 
And One will sit on the throne in truth; Isa 16:5
shnarkle said:
...Christian texts explicitly point out that it is the truth that will set you free.
How is that seeking truth?
For this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice. John 18:37
shnarkle said:
Anyone who sees the truth is blessed.
And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. John 8:32
Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. John 8:36
 
Back
Top