Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Religion or Science - How do they compare?
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 428 of 882 (833644)
05-24-2018 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
05-24-2018 2:31 PM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
The point is that there isn't just the one method of arriving at true knowledge of the world. There is empirical science and there is the revelation of God, and it matters not whether some people don't believe in God for the statement I made to be true.
The problem is that you are not arriving at true knowledge. Instead, you are starting with what you claim is true knowledge without any evidence leading up to it. You proclaim that a specific text is a revelation of God, because you say so. That is simply proclaiming something to be true knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 2:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 6:06 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 460 of 882 (833711)
05-25-2018 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by Faith
05-24-2018 6:06 PM


Re: Back to the title of the thread
Faith writes:
Millions of Christians and at least thousands of Bible experts say it's God's revelation.
That is just more claims without evidence to back them.
We all agree and it doesn't matter that others don't. 0I'm not offering it to you to believe it, I'm just stating that the true God is a source of knowledge.
And that's the difference between religion and science. Religion just states things. Science follows evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by Faith, posted 05-24-2018 6:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 461 of 882 (833712)
05-25-2018 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by Phat
05-25-2018 12:30 PM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Phat writes:
My conclusion is that if what you believe is true, reality is not as it appears.
Do a believers and non-believers get different results when they sequence a genome?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Phat, posted 05-25-2018 12:30 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 4:15 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 465 of 882 (833716)
05-25-2018 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 454 by Faith
05-25-2018 1:57 PM


Re: Faith's fantasies vs reality
Faith writes:
I've answered the forensics claim many times. It only works for the historical or witnessed past,
Why does DNA fingerprinting only work if someone witnessed the crime?
where you actually have information from that past but for the prehistoric past all you have is today's observations, a few ways to compare things in the present that may apply to that distant past, but no way to verify anything from that actual past.
We do have information from the prehistoric past. We have fossils. We have the DNA found in modern species which is a direct record of ancestry. We have the geologic record which is information from the prehistoric past.
If in fact it's only the result of the Flood which killed all the dead things contained in the rocks you misinterpret as representing time periods, there is no way to prove it one way or the other.
You have never shown that it is misinterpreted, so the evidence stands.
There is no way to prove that evolution occurred from one species to another because the only thing you can actually observe is variation within a Kind, it is merely assumed.
There is a way. It's called DNA and fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 1:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Faith, posted 05-25-2018 4:33 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 530 of 882 (834390)
06-04-2018 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 529 by GDR
06-04-2018 2:22 PM


Re: Moral problems in the Bible?
GDR writes:
If however there is built into creation a moral code that distinguishes right from wrong, or more specifically good from evil then we should ask the question of where does that come from. Materialists take the point of view as I understand that our moral code has evolved based on what works best for us and individuals and society.
I don't see why anyone would want an absolute moral code. What if that absolute moral code says that we have to kill everyone who has red hair? It would seem to me that the preferred moral code is the one that is based on humans, not some outside list of rules.
If there is no moral code that would exist apart from our existence the I question the idea that we would have adapted a moral code that gives us the notion of sacrificing our own well being for people of different gene pools, different nationalities and even with different moral codes. Why do millions of us send our personal resources of time and money to those less fortunate in other parts of the world when our own gene pool or society would be better off if they would die away and give us full access to their resources?
What if there was an absolute moral code that did say to let those people die off. What then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by GDR, posted 06-04-2018 2:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by GDR, posted 06-05-2018 2:16 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 535 of 882 (834412)
06-05-2018 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by GDR
06-05-2018 2:16 AM


Re: Moral problems in the Bible?
OK, but we have also seen humans come up with a moral code that tells them to kill those who don't agree with them, or of another culture. If there is a universal moral code we are obviously free to ignore it whatever it might be.
We have also rejected human based moralities that we judge to be flawed. That's the advantage of a subjective moral code, we can continue to improve on it and progress. If morality is absolute and objective, then that's it. You can't change it and it doesn't matter if you disagree with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by GDR, posted 06-05-2018 2:16 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by GDR, posted 06-06-2018 5:41 PM Taq 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