Unknown Soldier
Well-known member
Actually, you just described knowing without seeing.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.
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.Christianity:
"VERB
- 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.
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.
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.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.
Yes, but again, Christ admonished Thomas to believe without seeing.Thomas believes what he already sees just like everyone else in the bible.
But you use Google.Google? This is you idea of a resource??? LOL. smh.
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.
Some idols are not constructed. Did you ever hear of a "teen idol"?See above, and note that one cannot construct an idol without using theirs or someone else's imagination.
I don't recall saying that oxygen is necessary for cancer cells to live but that photosynthesis is necessary for them to live.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.
That's an amazing claim.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 why I dismiss most of yours. "Immortal cancer cells"? LOLAgain, claims presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Nor yours mine.Be that as it may, your personal opinion doesn't refute any of my ideas.
Sequencing DNA provides important information regarding gene transfer from generation to generation--the very basis of evolution.False. Sequencing DNA doesn't present any evolutionary theories much less the "Mechanism" itself.
Hmmm. I'm wondering what in this latest post of yours that you will deny saying later.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.
But Christianity claims Jesus rose from the dead. Science has never reached that conclusion.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.