|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Belief in God is scientific. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God Not really. That's just a silly statement. What is needed for you to understand and accept the Theory of Evolution as well as the Fact that Evolution happened is not faith but education, experience, critical thinking skills and honesty. The fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only model so far that explains the fact of Evolution is also unrelated to the belief in God. Many of us, as devout Christians, understand both the fact that Evolution happened and how the Theory of Evolution explains what we see, yet we still believe in God and have Faith in God.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I personally think the observable world offers much more evidence of intelligent design than of chance. I would need more faith to believe in the theory of evolution than in the idea that there is a God No, you'd need more knowledge than you presently have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
The issue really, Mike, is to do with objective logical notation VERSUS the assumption-driven Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.
Secular, Materialist, mainstream science, is not strictly objective, because it must proceed in giving a worldview that is consistently naturalistic. If there is evidence for God, that does not fit with the theories that expound a natural beginning and unfolding of the universe, so that evidence will always be viewed as paradoxical. The rules of science therefore allow only natural explanations based on the tautology that a natural universe will give natural explanations. Unfortunately, while the God-of-the-gaps is sound, it is not sound to state the opposite, which is that God can't ever be inferred. If science will not allow God to be inferred, yet He is true, then logically science is GUARANTEED to come to wrong conclusions, and wrong/false theories. LOGICALLY, secular science is inherently none-objective. It must be by definition, otherwise there would be no such thing as methodological naturalism. It must be biased, in this regard, as science is the art of natural explanations. Logically, it has to be biased towards naturalism. Therefore that there is no scientific evidence of God, is the same as saying; "there is nothing physically demanding in being lazy". That conclusion is tautologous, if science can't infer God, then there can't be "scientific" evidence of God, as it would be like saying; "we can't include cakes in our cooking school, so here is a question, --is there any cakes in our cooking school?--" Doesn't take Einstein to give the answer does it mike? There are no cakes, because they are not allowed, but does that mean cakes are not valid? Does it mean God is not valid? No - because if there is evidence for God, it is still there, it is just not classed as "science". A nifty trick really, because if evidence is not "scientific" they know that nobody will consider it, even if it is brilliant and true. Therefore I politely request you read my following blog entry, and I promise the evolutionists, I am not saying there is secular-science evidence for God, as that is not possible, as you have made it that way. So do not be angry, I am not claiming to know anything secular-scientific. Creation and evolution views: Plenty of evidence for God's existence Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
What is needed for you to understand and accept the Theory of Evolution as well as the Fact that Evolution happened is not faith but education, experience, critical thinking skills and honesty.
The fact that the Theory of Evolution is the only model so far that explains the fact of Evolution is also unrelated to the belief in God. Many of us, as devout Christians, understand both the fact that Evolution happened and how the Theory of Evolution explains what we see, yet we still believe in God and have Faith in God. You're using the term, "fact" as an epithet, stated, ad nasueum. I've highlighted the propaganda/rhetoric. It is used as a superfluous, extraneous input. By stating this strongly, notice you don't have to support your statement with any actual argument/. Stating the same thing, incessantly, will not make it either more true or more false, (google, "ad nasuseum") It should also be pointed out that there are people with an education, critical thinking skills and honesty, that are creationist, understand evolution and do not accept it as, "fact". You can find a number of them at Creation.com, I can think of a few PHDs off hand, such as Jonathan Sarfati, David CatchPoole, et al, all whom are much more qualified than Jar the evolutionist is, and they also do not seem to engage in these fallacies. So it is a non sequitur that you will be evolutionist if you have these attributes, as exampled by the real-life examples acting as my absurdum. As Zod says, Jar, "you cannot bargain with what you do not have." "We have all these things aready, without you." (Superman 2.) We can have all of those skills and knowledges AND reject evolution, and we do, in real life. I believe I have shown ample critical thinking skills in this post, WITHOUT being evolutionist. Now if there was something, some syllogism, with some sort of premises, form and genuine inference, either tollens or ponen, then submit it. No offense to you, but you can imagine how infuriating your post is, when you happen to know you have all those things, and yet you are not evolutionist and yet you seem to be telling me I am evolutionist when I know I am not. To be evolutionist, you need to have been taught by evolutionists, that's all, and you need credulity when it comes to believing men's limited induction tallies, are wiser than the God that created the universe. So basically, you just need to be able to jump to grandiose conclusions, based on folly, against the weight of the reality of the creation. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I am not saying there is secular-science evidence for God, as that is not possible, as you have made it that way. Is your god not omnipotent?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you trying to agree with the OP that the ad populum fallacy should be incorporated into the scientific method, or are you trying to change the subject?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I believe I have shown ample critical thinking skills in this post ... And that's just one of the untrue things you believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Mike the Wiz writes: It should also be pointed out that there are people with an education, critical thinking skills and honesty, that are creationist, understand evolution and do not accept it as, "fact". You can find a number of them at Creation.com, I can think of a few PHDs off hand, such as Jonathan Sarfati, This is something that interests me - but maybe it needs a different thread - why otherwise sane people believe insane things. Of course, Sartfati may not be sane - I have no idea, a lot of very good chess players are bonkers - but assuming he is, he's a chemist which gives him no credentials to write books on evolution (or rather books about why evoution is false.) Having a PhD in chemistry also says nothing about his critical thinking skills, but believing that the bible is literally true and that the earth is 6000 years old tells us everything we need to know about them.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It IS a fact that species change over time. Species are not immutable. That is, they evolve.
It is also a fact that the ToE provides a model for how it works. It is also a fact that another model doesn't explain it better. It doesn't matter who accepts those facts or not, but they are, in fact, true statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
you may as well fuck off out if here.
Thats telling em. I gave you a cheer to offset your six jeers. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Bullshit Mike, I am not using the term fact as epithet, as propaganda or as rhetoric.
I am using therm fact when I am speaking of facts. I don't think you have shown honesty in many years Mike. If you claim that Creationism can be Science then you are not being honest or you are delusional. I don't doubt for a second that you BELIEVE Creationism can be science or that their might be Creation Scientists but that is at best a sign of being delusional. Science must hold all things as tentative including God.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Secular, Materialist, mainstream science, is not strictly objective, because it must proceed in giving a worldview that is consistently naturalistic. So what observed and verified supernatural mechanisms would you like science to include?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You're using the term, "fact" as an epithet, stated, ad nasueum. I've highlighted the propaganda/rhetoric. It is used as a superfluous, extraneous input. It is no different than your use of epithets such as "materialism" or "naturalism".
To be evolutionist, you need to have been taught by evolutionists, that's all, and you need credulity when it comes to believing men's limited induction tallies, are wiser than the God that created the universe. So says a man. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ossat Member (Idle past 2511 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
What would "evidence of chance" look like? Do you ever see scientists talking about "chance"? Why is it always creationists saying it? Could it be a misunderstanding? lol - I just did a Google Scholar search for the word 'chance'... all I got was a bunch of papers written by people that were named Chance I mean unplanned changes. Would it sound more like evolutionist language if I refer to it as "random mutations". Isn't that the way evolution is suppose to happen?
You know how babies are made. New animals come from existing animals. How do you get variety from that process? Because just a small part of your genetic information (genotype) is expressed physically in your body (Phenotype). You look slightly different respective to your parents but still the genetic information is the same. I know there are mutations in the process and they contribute to the variation but that doesn't really mean there is "evolution" in process
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ossat Member (Idle past 2511 days) Posts: 41 Joined: |
But are you able to demonstrate that this is true using evidence? Any living thing no matter how small and simple looks, is far too complex, has got far too much parts interacting together to be the result of unplanned events
Why would you need faith when there is evidence to look at? 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Would you say you don't need any faith to accept the theory of evolution? you can read this website or any other, or any book. That alone is not evidence at all, you are just believing in what other people is writing, you are basically having faith in them
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024