Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   5 Questions...
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 107 (613)
12-11-2001 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by redstang281
12-11-2001 2:34 PM



Redstang wrote:
I would just like Athiest to seriously think about the theories that scientist conjure up to deny the existance of God.
Please realize that science does NOT develop theories in order to deny the existence of God. Science does not address the supernatural at all.
What you have been engaging in, largely is a philosophical and logical debate, not a scientific one.

Redstang wrote:
Just ask yourself how it can be possible for something to just exist and further things to spring up from it. It's not. So therefor whatever it was that started everything had to be considered impossible by science.
This is not an accurate portrayal of how science treats the supernatural.
It is simply not useful in science to say "Godidit". It doesn't explain anything. So, we say "We don't know".

Redstang wrote:
God is the only thing can just exist.
That is a statement of faith, and faith alone. You have no positive evidence for the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent deity, so you believe on faith. That is perfectly fine, of course, but please realize that it is a leap of faith that you make, that others whom have likely contemplated the same issues you have, do not have to make.

Redstang wrote:
I don't care what kind of singular big bang theory they can up with there always has to be something that put it there.
Why does there "always" have to be something that put it there? There is no evidence to suggest that "something put the universe in place, so it is more accurate to say we don't know what put the universe in place, and we may never know. Faith is what some people hold in order to get past the "I don't know".
Also, if you say that there *had* to be something that created the universe, then the next logical statement is, "the creator *had* to likewise have a creator." And so on, and so on.

Redstang wrote:
If you deny everything I am claiming you really have to ask yourself why you deny it.
It's not a matter of denial of your claims. It is a matter of your lack of evidence to support your claims.
You are asking for a leap of pure faith, not based upon any evidence. Most people have some kind of faith, others say "I don't know" and leave it at that, and still others say "I
do not believe".

Redstang wrote:
Do you deny it because you think it's wrong, or because you just don't want to accept it.
Why should anyone "accept" your version of faith? Because you say so?

Redstang wrote:
Because he who creates the world has the right to create the rules.
This is just another statement of faith.

Redstang wrote:
Human nature doesn't like to follow rules.
I strongly disagree. Humans are all about rules. Wars and oppression largely happen because one group wants other groups to follow the same religious, ethical, or societal rules as they themselves do.
One of the reasons humans have come to dominate the planet is because we have been selectd to be able to work in groups, and follow community rules, to achieve group objectives.
Allison
------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-12-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by redstang281, posted 12-11-2001 2:34 PM redstang281 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 12-12-2001 8:49 AM nator has replied
 Message 51 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:53 AM nator has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 79 of 107 (687)
12-12-2001 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
That is why I don't trust the knowledge conceived by man alone.

The problem is, you have no evidence that you have gleaned any knowledge from any supernatural origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:11 AM redstang281 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 80 of 107 (688)
12-12-2001 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by redstang281
12-12-2001 11:02 AM


[QUOTE]If you believe that then you are limiting God. Because you don't beleive that something that is beyond your understanding could possibly exist. It's arrogant to limit the unknown based on the knowledge you have of the known.
First, it is only your particular view that God is all-powerful and omnicient. Remember the old logic brain-teaser, "Could God make a rock so heavy that He couldn't lift it"?
"I am sorry but claiming that there is a niche for God that only God can fill doesn't do you any good here...."
I have explained it many many times to you and yet you still don't understand. You have closed your eyes completly. [/B][/QUOTE]
Your particular faith has just as much credence as any other, looking at it from an evidenciary viewpoint.
I would say that your opponent's eyes are wide open, as he is willing to put every religious variation through the same logical wringer. If we are to decide whom has the more limited, closed-minded viewpoint, I would say that it is probably yours, as there seems to be no way you would ever question or doubt what you believe.
------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 11:02 AM redstang281 has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 81 of 107 (689)
12-12-2001 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Percy
12-12-2001 8:49 AM


Thanks, Percy, I figured it out too late. I am glad you could fix it for me.
A

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Percy, posted 12-12-2001 8:49 AM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 82 of 107 (690)
12-12-2001 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by redstang281
12-12-2001 8:53 AM


quote:
Originally posted by redstang281:
But I believe that it does.
Regardless of what you believe, or even what some individual scientists might think, science, as a method, does not address the supernatural. Science deals with naturalistic explanations for naturalistic phenomena.
You should know that there are many scientists, including Evolutionary Biologists, who believe in God. Among the believers, there are Christians, as well as people of other faiths.
I will remind you that the Church was quite involved in science and scientific findings a while back, and that's when people like Galileo were pursecuted for making findings which went against holy doctrine.
As soon as science stopped allowing supernatural explanations as evidence, we began to make huge leaps in understanding. In fact, we came out of the Dark Ages.
quote:
I believe scientist don't want there to be a God because if there is something all knowing, then they can't feel quite as smart as they would like to feel.
Do you even know any scientists, personally?
I happen to be married to one, and have many friends who are scientists. I have to tell you that, in my experience, scientists are the first to say when they don't know something. This is due to their training, which requires them to be careful that they can ALWAYS back up what they claim with sound evidence. Know-it-alls who can't put the evidence where their mouths are don't make it in the profession.
Which is the more close-minded, self-satisfied position; the scientist who must back up everything they claim with evidence and who is willing to say "I don't know" when there isn't enough evidence, and who also must be willing to change their views if the evidence demands it, or the religious person who simply states what they believe, sans evidence, and does not ever challenge those beliefs?
quote:
I understand science does not have all the answers now, and most of you in here are pending your beliefs on what can be proven at the time. I would just like for all of you to investigate the side of creation and see if you can prove their theories wrong. If you read on the creation sites and some of the christian sites you can find all the answers to the questions you have. If you are so convinced of what you believe in than you should have no trouble studying the bible, christianaity, and the creationist pov. If you are going to form an oppinion on anything you must look at the other side of the matter.
I have read a lot of scientific creationist literature, and the science they use to support what they say is terrible. They misquote and misrepresent scientists and their work repeatedly and shamelessly. They are shown over and over that their claims are contrary to the evidence, yet they continue to repeat their misinformation, sometimes for years.
It seems to me that in order to be one of several of the more radical types of Creationist, I must twist and ignore evidence and stop using logic.
To be blunt, become I would have to become intellectually-dishonest.
This is the example that leaders of the movement like Duane Gish and Henry Morris provide.
Allison
------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 12-12-2001]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by redstang281, posted 12-12-2001 8:53 AM redstang281 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