{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by SSG ACM:
7/13/2015 7:48:23 PM
1
Some of these holes are not even adequately theorized (e.g., organic manifestation from non-organic material, the superseding evolution of human intelligence, the inability of natural selection to develop new biological functions, et cetera).
English
-
As I said, we still have a lot to learn.
-
Not when the answer has already been revealed.
-
And what was the answer exactly?
-
-
Your argument makes no sense. You go and point out the flaws in a scientific theory, then you claim that nullifies the theory. You then use something that isn't even accepted by the scientific community to prove your statement. I would have accepted intelligent design... maybe, but God? You can't fight a battle with science then use god as the answer. It just doesn't make sense.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 8:42:57 PMThe truth isn't accepted by the "scientific" community because they want to test the supernatural with tangible tools. How well do you think that would go? The point of God existing isn't to satisfy their thirst for a daily appearance.
-
I love how you put science in quotes, as if science isn't defined by a clear set of actions. If you find me some intangible tools I'm pretty sure the scientific community would be happy to use them. As long as you prove that they exist and work of course.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 8:50:30 PMScience is defined by it's denotation (i.e., the science of pharmaceuticals is different than the science of nuclear engineering). Of course you are aware that your requested task is impossible?
-
I would define science with the scientific method. Although yes this is not the definition of science, it is the best why to answer things scientifically. If it's impossible then how do I know it's real?
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 9:00:24 PMHuh, I would use the etymology of a word to define any word.[spoiler]I didn't understand your question.[/spoiler]
-
That is -blam!-ing stupid. The answer has not be revealed. "God Did It." IS NOT AN ANSWER. If anything it leaves more questions than answeres! Why? Where? How? Where did he come from? Ect. Ect.
-
If I assume "God," I wouldn't be wrong since it solves the paradox. One of the most popular tactics for atheists to often tackle would be the question to God's possible existence. To which I would respond simply by saying, "God, by definition, created everything (Jn. 1:1; Gn. 1:3), including the time dimension that we exist in; however, He isn't affected by time (2 Pet. 3:8); therefore, He doesn't exist in time; thus, He doesn't require a cause." Everything in evolution involves finite things that obviously had an origin, but what began our own possibility of existence or consciousness of such existence without an infinite cause?
-
That isn't a Paradox. There are many theories that we cannot yet test. God I himself is a Paradox. Hoe can God exist out of space and time?
-
It's possible. But probably not true. Take the Big Bang for example. The universe(our universe at least) did not exist. Time wasn't a thing.
