Science reveals that trees evolved, so I can grow a tree. No one can make one because they aren't assembled from parts.
There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
Science reveals that trees evolved, so I can grow a tree. No one can make one because they aren't assembled from parts.
No it's "worse" than that (as I kept pointing out to Jan - which he was apparently incapable of understanding). You have to show not only that the scientific explanation doesn't work but that one is not possible.
Science progresses, what we don't know today becomes common place a few years down the line.
Science by its very nature is an ongoing process - declaring for god in the absence of any current explanation is, as Yazata intimated/ said, merely throwing your hands in the air and claiming you're no longer interested in a genuine answer.
Pop science says all kinds of stuff, but in reality
science can only make guesses.
jan.
That's what religion is, guesses with no experimental backup.
Not the original religion (understood through scripture), the answer is there. We only have to understand it.
jan.
That's fine for you personally, but it's no rational argument.
Rationality is generally understood in impersonal terms. It's about particular premises being in a particular sequence with which all participants can agree, expending minimum effort and time in the process.
Understanding is personal, something specific to each person, something that requires a person's actual effort and time.
Generally, a philosophical discourse is conducted in such a manner that participants expend minimum effort and time.
Generally, it is considered to be outside of philosophical discourse for one party to request or imply that the other party temporarily leave the discourse and perform a particular task in order to obtain the information or experience necessary to continue the discourse.
Because it's just made-up. In science, it would be called a hypothesis, which is just the first step.
You're asking for too much from the atheists.
She is asking for faith in the Bible, which is not justifiable. There are plenty of apologists for this story, but they all use flawed reasoning, and most are based on a misunderstanding how science works.
Who is asking for faith in the Bible? Jan? He's not Christian.
Scripture, whatever.
Well, spidergoat doesn't seem to be all that interested ... and I am participating only because I am jealous as you rather pay attention to those atheists than to me.
Other than that, LG made a systematic suggestion earlier on:
Defeating Varieties of Atheistic Arguments
Well I say it's not made up.
The premise is of a spiritual nature, not physical, so it is outside of the domain of physical science.
jan.
Nothing that can be observed directly or indirectly is outside of the domain of science. That is a common misunderstanding.
OK, I finally got the dollar in the mail.
This thread has been moving fast, yet no proof of God has been forthcoming.
It’s bad enough that people propose ‘God’ out of nowhere, and then even worser that they then preach ‘God’ as truth and fact, and while this goes nowhere as even a notion, much less a theory, they still preach it, and that’s why I’m providing a disproof of the Guy even in lieu of anyone not being able to prove Him.
Disproof:
This Guy who supposedly does planning and creation is still a system of mind, and is thus not fundamental at all, since something had to come before Him, such as the parts of His composite complexity, which He would therefore be dependent on for His existence. If the notion of Him being fundamental is dropped, then all one has is a smart life form—an alien, and not a God at all.
Any hand-waving, magical proclamations as proof of the Guy? Don’t bother, for those are not even close to good enough.