Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 91 of 145 (469145)
06-04-2008 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wumpini
06-03-2008 10:00 PM


Except that the logic is completely different. There is no evidence that the Bible is actually the inspired Word of God any more then the Koran is the inspired word of Allah, any more then the Holy Book of the IPU is the inspired word of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Your argument is if someone wrote it down, it must be true.
There is no evidence for the validity of your claim where dating fossils and rocks actually does have evidence.
quote:
What parts of the Bible can be taken literally by a scientist who believes in the God of the Bible?
The parts obviously mean to be taken literally. It's called reason. Please use it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wumpini, posted 06-03-2008 10:00 PM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 7:00 AM obvious Child has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 92 of 145 (469150)
06-04-2008 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Coyote
06-03-2008 10:17 PM


What if there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
I have not reviewed the overwhelming evidence. I have seen many claims from you guys that there is overwhelming evidence.
Those who are interpreting the evidence that does exist are most surely doing so with bias. They look at the evidence as if God does not exist. Therefore, their interpretations and their conclusions could be incorrect.
I think the "global flood" is sufficiently investigated and disproved to show that not everything in scripture is accurate.
I do not agree that the global flood has been disproved.
I do not argue that everything in the Bible is scientifically accurate. It is not a science book. I also do not argue that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. You must use a good hermeneutic to determine what is allegory, metaphor, etc. The flood is portrayed as an actual event in the book of Genesis and referenced many times in the New Testament.
What do you then? Do you ignore the evidence before your very eyes, and pretend it's not there?
No. However, I do not take the opinion of those who have values and personal beliefs that are much different than mine that could cause them to come to different conclusions because they exclude supernatural effects.
For example, if you lived at the time of Christ, and I told you that Christ had overcome death. That he died, he was buried, and then he was alive again. Scientifically, you could tell me that this was impossible. You could come up with all sorts of theories. Maybe he was not really dead. Maybe someone else died and Christ was hiding out at the time. Maybe the one that was seen later as alive was not Christ. However, the only acceptable theory to me is the one that is in the Bible.
Did Christ walk on water? Yes. Is it scientifically possible? No.
Did Christ raise others from the dead? Yes. Is it scientifically possible? No.
Did Christ feed 1,000's of people with a handful of food? Yes. Is it scientifcally possible? No.
Was there a global flood? Yes. Is it scientifically possible? No.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Coyote, posted 06-03-2008 10:17 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Fosdick, posted 06-04-2008 12:05 PM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 100 by obvious Child, posted 06-04-2008 6:40 PM Wumpini has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 93 of 145 (469151)
06-04-2008 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Straggler
06-04-2008 1:48 AM


Re: Chance
Straggler writes:
The ultimate goal of physics is a 'theory of everything'. a single equation that describes all matter, energy and force within the universe. Who would have thought until relatively recently that nature might even be so simple as for this to even be a possibility?
Is nature that simple? Even in physics, has the trend not been towards discovery that things are not as you supposed them to be. The particles keep getting smaller and smaller, until now you are dealing with new string theories, and who even knows how much deeper it can go? Could this depth be infinite and go beyond our comprehension? I do not see why not.
The point is that the seemingly impossible can become reality via natural means. The illusion of intention comes as a result of finding ourselves at the end of a long chain of events that just seem too improbable to contemplate as anything other than planned. Yet we are just the result of a combination of events equally as improbable as any other. The superficially obvious conclusion that we are the result of the intended combination of events is an illusion.
Or the illusion that you speak of could be a reality. Not the natural processes that led to each of us being here individually on this earth, but the intention that resulted in the origin of all that we see. It seems to be incorrect to assume that because something appears to be by natural process and chance today that it has always been the case.
In fact we have exactly the perceptive limitations that you would expect of a brainy ape who spent it's formative years roaming the surface of the Earth.
Is that a conclusion of science, or your perception? Because my perception would be that if man has been roaming this earth for hundreds of thousands of years, then he should have come a lot farther than he has so far.
Straggler writes:
Why would God's ultimate creation be so limited and set in stage so ridiculously large and incomprehensible to it?
Is it possible that we are limited so that we would not confuse our greatness with the Greatness of God and His Creation?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2008 1:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 06-04-2008 7:08 PM Wumpini has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 94 of 145 (469152)
06-04-2008 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by dwise1
06-04-2008 2:43 AM


Chance
dwise writes:
By chance? Of course not.
By natural processes? Yes, of course.
Whatever gave you the idea that it's by "chance"?
I guess I am misunderstanding some of your processes. I can think of a few events that would seem to be to be greatly improbable and that do not appear to include some natural process.
What was the process that initiated the big bang? If there was no cause then how did it come about?
What was the process that brought together that primordial soup into a living organism? If there was no cause then how did these elements form?
dwise writes:
First, to re-iterate: where does this "by chance" nonsense come from? "By natural processes" does not mean "by chance". Have you been ingesting creationist bullshit? That's very nasty stuff, you know, and very detrimental to your spiritual health (to say nothing about your mental and intellectual and moral health).
Actually I have been reading a lot of what scientists have to say. They say it is by chance, however they do not refer to it as nonsense. I guess if you say creationists say the same thing then at least scientists and creationists agree on something. These natural processes are by chance. For some reason, you seem to disagree with both of them.
Here are some quotes I have from science related to evolution:
quote:
When we incorporate genetics into our story, it becomes more obvious why the generation of new variations is a chance process. Variants do not arise because they are needed. They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.
quote:
Even if the environments are not very different, the populations may differentiate because different mutations and genetic combinations occur by chance in each. Thus, selection will have different raw material to act upon in each population.
Which is the better path? To continue to try to learn as much about the universe as we can, even knowing that we will never succeed completely?
Yes, we should do this. However, we should not deny the existence of God.
Or closing our eyes firmly, jamming our fingers in our ears, and yelling "la, la, la, la ..." perpetually and as loudly as possible so that we can fend off reality for as long as we can maintain willfull ignorance?
No one is proposing this.
The choice is very clear to me and to most others. Is it clear to you? Is it even faintly apparent to you?
You seem to think there are only two choices as to how we approach the search for truth.
Are you proposing that a scientific approach with no consideration of God, or a religious approach with no consideration of science are our only two alternatives?
What ever gave you that idea? Could it be the either/or attitude of this forum?
dwise writes:
if your fallible human interpretation of the Bible disagrees with reality, which is at fault? The Bible? Or your own fallible human interpretation?
Let us make an assumption that the evidence truly does not support the “Theory of Evolution.”
If your fallible human interpretation of the evidence disagrees with the truth(the Bible), which is at fault? The evidence? Or your own fallible human interpretation?
I am sick and tired of armies of creationists who try to impose their own fallible human interpretations on the Bible (including their own fallible human interpretation of the status of the Bible) and insist that if their particular fallible human interpretations are contrary-to-fact (which they have always inevitibly proven to be) then the Bible is a complete lie and should be thrown in the trash, God does not exist, and we should all become hedonistic atheists doing whatever we want to. That is so unimaginably idiotic! And yet so many creationists have insisted to me that that is precisely the way that it must be.
First, you imply that the Bible has proven to be contrary to fact. This is your opinion based upon your fallible interpretation of the evidence, and your fallible interpretation ignores the supernatural power that is claimed in the Bible. How can you prove the Bible is contrary-to-fact when you ignore the very basis of the fact? That there is a supernatural power involved.
Second, if the Bible is proven to be contrary to fact, then it is useless to me or anyone else as a guide to truth. It is either the truth as inspired by God, or it is a fabrication of man. I do not think I would throw it in the trash; however it surely would not be the basis of my life.
Third, if the Bible is proven to be contrary to fact then the God of the Bible does not exist.
Fourth, if the Bible is proven to be contrary to fact, and there is no God, then it would be totally irrational to believe in God. If that is the case then we should all become atheists. That also means we should do whatever we want to do. There would be no universal moral law in the universe. Whatever benefits us or pleases us most in this life, we should pursue. It means the only right and wrong that exists is dictated by society. The only penalty for crossing these boundaries is punishment by society. These defintions of right and wrong could vary greatly from society to society. There is no reason that society cannot decide that anything is right (regardless of our present moral understandings) based upon the desires of society. This can include killing infants, the elderly, the handicapped, etc. because they are not productive or wanted. This can include exploiting those who are weaker. The playing field is wide open. It is not unimaginably idiotic. I can sure imagine it, and it does not look very good.
Edited by Wumpini, : changed "does" to "does not" to indicate original intent.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 06-04-2008 2:43 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by dwise1, posted 06-04-2008 9:30 PM Wumpini has replied
 Message 139 by Parasomnium, posted 07-05-2008 11:01 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 145 by bluescat48, posted 08-05-2008 12:17 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 95 of 145 (469154)
06-04-2008 7:00 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by obvious Child
06-04-2008 2:55 AM


Evidence
Except that the logic is completely different. There is no evidence that the Bible is actually the inspired Word of God any more then the Koran is the inspired word of Allah, any more then the Holy Book of the IPU is the inspired word of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Your argument is if someone wrote it down, it must be true.
Have you actually studied any apologetics related to the Bible or are you only saying this because it is what everyone else says on this website?
If you have studied apologetics then you know that there is much more evidence for the Bible then there is for the Holy Book of IPU. You are obviously not willing to look at that evidence.
Or are we playing word games with the term evidence?
Edited by Wumpini, : spelling

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by obvious Child, posted 06-04-2008 2:55 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by obvious Child, posted 06-04-2008 5:55 PM Wumpini has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 96 of 145 (469155)
06-04-2008 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
06-03-2008 8:51 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Coragyps writes:
The "big problem," though, is a problem only for the bible literalists
What do you mean by Bible literalists?
How do we tie this back into the scientists that are the focus of this thread topic. Those scientists that believe in God. What is their view of the Bible? Can any of it be taken literally?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 06-03-2008 8:51 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 97 of 145 (469156)
06-04-2008 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by dwise1
06-03-2008 9:30 PM


Re: Scientists and Belief in God
Also because the question answered by resorting to the gods has shifted.
Thanks, dwise, for such a clear statement of something I hadn't figured out how to articulate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by dwise1, posted 06-03-2008 9:30 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 98 of 145 (469187)
06-04-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Wumpini
06-04-2008 4:34 AM


The power of faith and the force of gravity
Wumpini writes:
Did Christ walk on water? Yes. Is it scientifically possible? No.
Did Christ raise others from the dead? Yes. Is it scientifically possible? No.
Did Christ feed 1,000's of people with a handful of food? Yes. Is it scientifcally possible? No.
Was there a global flood? Yes. Is it scientifically possible? No.
THIS JUST IN: The power of faith and the force of gravity are two similar things. Gravity can suck light down a black hole and make it dark forever. Faith can suck reason down the drain of true believership and make it unthinkable forever.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 4:34 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 99 of 145 (469242)
06-04-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Wumpini
06-04-2008 7:00 AM


Re: Evidence
quote:
Have you actually studied any apologetics related to the Bible or are you only saying this because it is what everyone else says on this website?
A bit of both. It doesn't change the fact that your argument is if someone wrote it down, it must be true.
quote:
If you have studied apologetics then you know that there is much more evidence for the Bible then there is for the Holy Book of IPU. You are obviously not willing to look at that evidence.
Where you mean 'evidence' is actually your faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 7:00 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 5:28 AM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 100 of 145 (469244)
06-04-2008 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Wumpini
06-04-2008 4:34 AM


quote:
Those who are interpreting the evidence that does exist are most surely doing so with bias. They look at the evidence as if God does not exist. Therefore, their interpretations and their conclusions could be incorrect.
Yeah, a bias of sanity. Furthermore, just because Biblical Genesis is total crap doesn't mean that "God" doesn't exist. The entire bible could be wrong and that does not effect the validity of Thor, Hera, Isis or Vishnu.
quote:
I do not agree that the global flood has been disproved.
Because you haven't looked at the evidence.
quote:
The flood is portrayed as an actual event in the book of Genesis and referenced many times in the New Testament.
Doesn't mean that it actually happened on a global scale.
quote:
However, the only acceptable theory to me is the one that is in the Bible.
You mean story. A theory requires facts. Your belief has none.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 4:34 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 7:03 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 101 of 145 (469247)
06-04-2008 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Wumpini
06-04-2008 4:47 AM


Re: Chance
The ultimate goal of physics is a 'theory of everything'. a single equation that describes all matter, energy and force within the universe. Who would have thought until relatively recently that nature might even be so simple as for this to even be a possibility?
Is nature that simple? Even in physics, has the trend not been towards discovery that things are not as you supposed them to be. The particles keep getting smaller and smaller, until now you are dealing with new string theories, and who even knows how much deeper it can go? Could this depth be infinite and go beyond our comprehension? I do not see why not.
No. It is not as simple a that. The particles discovered have always relatated to the forces observed and help explain those observations. The more we discover the less we seem to know in many ways but the less we seem to need to know in certain other ways. Various seemingly disparate physical phenomenon have been unified such that the principles that found our knowledge have become ever more powerful whilst ever less numerous.
The point is that the seemingly impossible can become reality via natural means. The illusion of intention comes as a result of finding ourselves at the end of a long chain of events that just seem too improbable to contemplate as anything other than planned. Yet we are just the result of a combination of events equally as improbable as any other. The superficially obvious conclusion that we are the result of the intended combination of events is an illusion.
Or the illusion that you speak of could be a reality. Not the natural processes that led to each of us being here individually on this earth, but the intention that resulted in the origin of all that we see. It seems to be incorrect to assume that because something appears to be by natural process and chance today that it has always been the case.
You seem to have ignored the specific example I detailed. Are you saying each and every one of us is individually and intentionally designed? Does God manage the dynamic of every sperm? Is God directly responsible for every genetic defect, every mutation, every deformity of every individual? Are you saying that the exact combination of people inhabiting this planet today, as you read this, was planned and intended by God? That each of our parents had no choice in their actions regarding the set of events that led to each one of us? That we ourselves have no choice regarding the ones we will love and the people we will produce as a result?
That is quite a claim. Do you really believe that?
In fact we have exactly the perceptive limitations that you would expect of a brainy ape who spent it's formative years roaming the surface of the Earth.
Is that a conclusion of science, or your perception? Because my perception would be that if man has been roaming this earth for hundreds of thousands of years, then he should have come a lot farther than he has so far.
Actually it is broadly the conclusion of science. Why would you expect mans perception to have exceeded that which is required of it if limited to life on this planet?
Why would God's ultimate creation be so limited and set in stage so ridiculously large and incomprehensible to it?
Is it possible that we are limited so that we would not confuse our greatness with the Greatness of God and His Creation?
The God answer is a lazy answer. It is a primitive answer. The God answer is an answer to every problem. The God explanation is an explanation for everything that requires understanding of nothing.
Why are bad things bad? Because God punishes us.
Why are complex things incomprehensible? Because God wishes it so in order to ensure that we do not get too full of ourselves.
Why are good things good? Because God is benevolent and loving of his creation.
Wumpini you are obviously not a fool. Surely you can see that an explanation for everything is an explanation of nothing at all? An answer that answers all questions actually answers no questions at all.
An omnipotent omniscient creator who is supposedly benevolent but who is justified in inflicting untold suffering on his creations for doing that which he designed them to do and knew that they would do in order to teach them that which they should do.........
This mass of contradictions can be applied to justify any argument, any position and any circumstance.
Believe this if you will. Believe this if it makes you happy and adds meaning to your life somehow.
However in the field of science at least the progress of humanity will depned on those who do not accept the answer that 'God did it'. Our progres will depend on those willing to search for alternative answers to the phenomenon and questions you choose to attribute to God.
So it has ben throughout the history of science and so it will continue to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 4:47 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 3:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 102 of 145 (469267)
06-04-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Wumpini
06-04-2008 6:09 AM


Re: Chance
dwise writes:
By chance? Of course not.
By natural processes? Yes, of course.
Whatever gave you the idea that it's by "chance"?
I guess I am misunderstanding some of your processes. I can think of a few events that would seem to be to be greatly improbable and that do not appear to include some natural process.
What was the process that initiated the big bang? If there was no cause then how did it come about?
What was the process that brought together that primordial soup into a living organism? If there was no cause then how did these elements form?
Where do you get that "if there was no cause" from? Natural processes, cause-and-effect, deterministic, not chance.
Now, when those inter-acting chains of cause-and-effect become complex (and it does not take much for this to happen), then we do need to resort to stochastic methods (working with probabilities) to figure out what's going on. For example, a device for working a lottery is to place ping-pong balls with numbers on them inside a large plastic globe and to circulate air through that globe to levitate and mix the balls until a fixed number of them exit through a hole that's barely big enough to allow a ball through. All of that happens through natural forces in a deterministic manner such that, if we knew and could described precisely all the forces acting upon those balls and trace with sufficient precision each ball's path through all its collisions against the other balls and against the globe's wall, then we should be able to calculate which balls will exit that globe and in what order. If we knew all that, which we don't, so at best we can work out the probabilities of the outcomes.
But that's still not chance, because the sequence of balls exitting that globe is not by chance, but rather by deterministic natural processes. It only appears to be by chance to those who do not understand what's happening.
{EDIT: Would you try to argue that the complexity of the workings of a lottery globe (or whatever the proper term of it is) is proof of the existence of God? That it can only work because God keeps poking his fingers into it? That we must factor in God into any investigation or discussion of lottery globes? Other than the fact that the use of lottery globes generates more fervent praying by more people than almost anything else, I fail to see why God would have to be directly involved.}
BTW, the proposed primorial soup wouldn't have formed elements. The mechanism for that are stars and novae.
Actually I have been reading a lot of what scientists have to say. They say it is by chance, however they do not refer to it as nonsense. I guess if you say creationists say the same thing then at least scientists and creationists agree on something. These natural processes are by chance. For some reason, you seem to disagree with both of them.
Here are some quotes I have from science related to evolution:
It is customary and expected that when one offers a quote, one cites the source of that quote. Whom are you actually quoting there? Another middle-school textbook (or even the same one)?
And please note that the first quote does not say that evolution is "by chance", but rather the opposite. Natural selection is not random, but rather somewhat deterministic. Even the random part, the increase of genetic variation, is by natural processes, "governed by the laws of genetics" as your mysterious source says. The same with the second quote.
Natural processes, not "by chance".
dwise1 writes:
Which is the better path? To continue to try to learn as much about the universe as we can, even knowing that we will never succeed completely?
Yes, we should do this. However, we should not deny the existence of God.
Who says that learning as much about the universe as we can requires denying the existence of God? Of any god? Or even require that we consider the existence of any gods? What do the gods have to do with learning about how the universe works?
Or closing our eyes firmly, jamming our fingers in our ears, and yelling "la, la, la, la ..." perpetually and as loudly as possible so that we can fend off reality for as long as we can maintain willfull ignorance?
No one is proposing this.
Actually, if one insists on using God to explain natural phenomena, then, yes indeed, that is being proposed. Because if "God" is used as such an answer, then that ends the investigation. Furthermore, it blocks any future investigation because such investigation would be seen as an attack on the existence of God.
Which is precisely the attitude that you keep displaying: that scientific investigation is attempting to deny the existence of God.
dwise1 writes:
The choice is very clear to me and to most others. Is it clear to you? Is it even faintly apparent to you?
You seem to think there are only two choices as to how we approach the search for truth.
Are you proposing that a scientific approach with no consideration of God, or a religious approach with no consideration of science are our only two alternatives?
What ever gave you that idea? Could it be the either/or attitude of this forum?
Which truths are you referring to?
The truth of how the universe works? In that case science is the better tool. Attempts to employ supernatural agents and explanations in that search would not only hinder the search for truth, but it would also harm the scientific endeavor. It serves no purpose to trying dragging in any god.
The truths of the supernatural? Science is of very little use there. This is the realm of the gods.
There's more than one search going on, you know.
First, you imply that the Bible has proven to be contrary to fact.
No, I do not so imply. In fact, I stated quite the opposite. Please read what I wrote. It is believers' misinterpretation of the Bible (both in what it says and what it is) that has proven to be contrary to fact. Has nothing to do with the Bible, but rather with what they believe about the Bible.
I'm running out of time to directly address the rest. Suffice to say that fallible humans will get things wrong, even though at the same time they can get things right. It's not either/or, not completely right or completely wrong, but rather a mix of both.
What I am saying is that it is idiotic for them to insist that their theology is completely right and that if any part of it is found to be wrong, then all of it is wrong, God does not exist, and there's no need for morality. Couldn't be further from the truth. Their theology will inevitably get things wrong, but that has no effect on the existence of God (it may have an effect on the existence of their misconception of God, but not on God). And moral exists and continues to be vitally important regardless of theology and even regardless of whether this god or that god or any god exists.
If their theology gets something wrong, then that means that Man has screwed up yet again, not that God doesn't exist. What is idiotic is believing that if Man screws up yet again, then God doesn't exist.
Edited by dwise1, : added the {EDIT}

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)
It is a well-known fact that reality has a definite liberal bias.
Robert Colbert on NPR

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Wumpini, posted 06-04-2008 6:09 AM Wumpini has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 4:26 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 103 of 145 (469340)
06-05-2008 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by obvious Child
06-04-2008 5:55 PM


Re: Evidence
oabaviousChild writes:
Where you mean 'evidence' is actually your faith.
I would not consider my faith as "evidence" for the inspiration of the Bible.
I would consider my faith as "evidence" that I have accepted the inspiration of the Bible.

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by obvious Child, posted 06-04-2008 5:55 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Fosdick, posted 06-05-2008 11:53 AM Wumpini has not replied
 Message 128 by obvious Child, posted 06-05-2008 7:11 PM Wumpini has not replied

  
Wumpini
Member (Idle past 5763 days)
Posts: 229
From: Ghana West Africa
Joined: 04-23-2008


Message 104 of 145 (469347)
06-05-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by obvious Child
06-04-2008 6:40 PM


Are some scientists insane?
Wumpini writes:
Those who are interpreting the evidence that does exist are most surely doing so with bias. They look at the evidence as if God does not exist. Therefore, their interpretations and their conclusions could be incorrect.
obviousChild writes:
Yeah, a bias of sanity.
Sanity depends upon how you look at things. If God exists, and the Bible is true, then you would have to be insane not to take God up on His offer.
Furthermore, just because Biblical Genesis is total crap doesn't mean that "God" doesn't exist. The entire bible could be wrong and that does not effect the validity of Thor, Hera, Isis or Vishnu.
Are you arguing that the entire Bible is wrong, or that all of Genesis is wrong, or that only Creation and the Flood stories are wrong?
You mean story. A theory requires facts. Your belief has none.
Are you arguing that there are no facts to support any of my beliefs?

"There is one thing even more vital to science than intelligent methods; and that is, the sincere desire to find out the truth, whatever it may be." - Charles Sanders Pierce

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by obvious Child, posted 06-04-2008 6:40 PM obvious Child has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2008 7:23 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 105 of 145 (469352)
06-05-2008 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Wumpini
06-05-2008 7:03 AM


Re: Are some scientists insane?
Wumpini writes:
Are some scientists insane?
Well, some of them do talk to an imaginary friend......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Wumpini, posted 06-05-2008 7:03 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024