Nowhere will you see the words warm and fuzzy. For comfort yes.
warm and fuzzy as in a good feeling, comfort as in a good feeling... -_-
Your term is still wrong, an emotional plea is a request made on emotion. I am not requesting anything.
Okay maybe I am using the wrong term, appeal to emotion is not though.
"
Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable."
Instead of facts to believe in God you claim to believe based on that it makes you feel comfortable to believe it. Thus using this stance to justify the validity of your belief.
Unless I'm totally off base on what you mean by comfort here.
I have a very open mind and you have not provided me with any new information - when new information is presented i do take it on board, and as stated, would admit i was wrong.
So you don't see how basing a belief on no proof is flawed? Which you have clearly admit to doing? Before you yet again try to trot out how this is in science I have already covered how it's not!
You clearly haven't bothered reading where i've stated if science produces 100% concrete evidence i would change my mind and accept i was wrong.
We can't get 100% as it has to remain falsifiable in order to to revise improving or if need be discarding outdated and false views. However what we do have is you accepting something with 0% evidence then turning around and demanding 100% evidence to stop believing it.
Happen to see something just a bit off here?
The "Big Bang" is a generally-accepted leap of faith also.
No it's not. It's based on evidence that can be observed and tested for.
Show me 100% evidence for the big bang theory - that it is indisputably correct, and i will admit you're right.
Demonstrating how religious views result in the denial of science.
I'm confused, so you can only be one or the other? You can't be a critical thinker at sometimes and a beliver in other times? As long as you don't mix the two then what's the problem?
Why be so inconsistent and use double standards?
I believe two things... and these I know for sure, is that 1: God created the universe and 2: Jesus Christ died to show sacrifice and absolve people from their sins. Everything else, I'm still trying to figure out
There is no objective evidence for them so you don't know for sure, you just believe you do.
You have no videotape or other recorded medium of the Big Bang because humanity was not around then. We only have a good presumption that the Big Bang actually occurred based on astronomical evidence after-the-fact.
We can use such information to come to such a conclusion. Because multiple people have been able to independently do this it's accepted as such.
It's like how we don't need to be present or see footage at the time a car accident happened to deduce that the two cars we see smashed in got into an accident with one another.
We don't have evidence even of this sort that can be independently observed and tested and have that independent viewer come to the conclusion of there being a God.
You can show me provisional evidence*
What we have is objective evidence.
What i don't understand is why does someone have to be right?
We'll know when we know - when one proves itself.
We are gaining knowledge based on observation and experimentation but your denying it based on an unobtainable goal which you clearly do not apply to what you do believe.
I accept and respect those who believe in the big bang theory.
& I'd like to think they'd respect those who believe in God.
I can respect those who believe in God, the belief is another matter.
those doubting religion will continue to doubt it and those doubting science will continue to doubt it.
Those doubting science don't seem to understand it.
No, you don't have to believe the entire bible. That statement is ignorant. Were they spawned by the bible? yes, but there are many things about the bible that I find wrong, or I believe that they were put there by people, Not God.
What makes you think these two things you picked out of the Bible are correct while others aren't? Just a subjective feeling perhaps? Maybe you had some subjective experience that can't be verified that what your accurately evaluating that experience?
With science we discard these things in order to arrive at a more accurate view.
You don't have to believe the entire bible. God is not within the bible, God lives outside the bible, you're putting God in a little box. The God I believe in is too big for your little box.
Your God appears to be a little box giving you a skewed view of the actual world around you.
^ So you you believe the god from the bible, but not in the bible? Right. I'll just end this there.
It's not a requirement to believe or even follow everything in the Bible. However the Bible isn't providing evidence but a claim, which then is claimed as evidence from an admittedly poor source.
