I know there is a God. There might even be many gods. But I do know that not one is more powerful than the other. Now, I did not say they are all good just they are all equal.
|
I know there is a God. There might even be many gods. But I do know that not one is more powerful than the other. Now, I did not say they are all good just they are all equal.
Sure anything is possible. But you are all trying to argue logical science to explain origins so I am just saying if you want to use logic and science, to say the universe just created itself or it has always existed, is not logical and goes against science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Of course science is just an tool used to explain elements around us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
A child may think that a car moves because invisible fairies push it, but when he/she grows up science will explain that there is an engine with pistons etc that make it move.
Scientists trying to explain the origin of the universe.. lol pure guess work.
Wow, you just hit the nail on the head.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
We're running into the anthropic principle here. If the earth didn't stay in orbit, or plants did not convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, we wouldn't be here having this discussion! :) Let me give you an example:Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Suppose I were to deal out a complete deck of 52 cards between you and I. We would now each have 26 cards apiece. Now the odds of you being dealt those 'exact' 26 cards which you happened to have received, and in the exact order you received them, are utterly astronomical! Yet, it just happened! And we would breach these long odds again and again for as long as I continued dealing out 52 cards. In other words, they'd have to come out in some order, and each of those orders would be an astronomical long shot by itself.
So according to your logic, if my deal to you were the only deal in the history of the universe, we should be absolutely amazed! What are the chances that the first card would be the 2 of clubs, the second card the queen of hearts, the third card the ace of diamonds... It must be a miracle, right? Yet the cards HAD to have come out in some order, so we shouldn't be at all surprised even though the odds they would come in that particular order are stupendous. Does that make sense Sassy?
Also, you have been conveniently ignoring the problem of infinite regress, which I keep asking you about... Just because you don't understand how the universe got here, you are asserting that god did it, yet you don't say what created god. To get around this by simply decreeing that god stands outside of time and therefore doesn't have to follow the same rules that we would expect of everything else, is just TOO EASY! -lol
No offense Sassy. I know you think you're being rational. But the logic you're using would get laughed out of any philosophy 101 course in a heartbeat. You need to find a better argument or presentation.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]Lol.. Lobro, that is a good attempt at a well thought out argument but unfortunately your analogy still says nothing of origin. In your analogy we have a "card dealer" so who is the card dealler when it comes to the Universe? How dished the universe cards?Quote:
Originally Posted by lobrobster
I think what we need to establish is what is to YOU the most logical explation of the origin of the universe? Big bang? Just appeared from now where? What?
I addressed this with capuchin, but in case you missed it I will explain it again:Quote:
Also, you have been conveniently ignoring the problem of infinite regress, which I keep asking you about... Just because you don't understand how the universe got here, you are asserting that god did it, yet you don't say what created god. To get around this by simply decreeing that god stands outside of time and therefore doesn't have to follow the same rules that we would expect of everything else, is just TOO EASY! -lol
One of the most overlooked assumptions in most arguments against the God as the creator is the assumption of naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that nature is “all that there is.” Basically you assume that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural laws. This I must say is a very blind and closed minded assumption. The Bible makes it clear that God is not bound by natural laws and if you just imagine for a moment that God really did create the Universe, then I don't think it would be a stretch to say He is an all powerful being not bound by the laws that naturally bind us as human beings so my argument still stands.
If hypothetically speaking (for your sake) God did really exists, what makes you think that a being as God, of such power and supernatural intelligence would be limited by his own creation? If He created all thinks including the laws of nature & time then why would you assume that he is bound by it?
So bottom line is I am not trying to use science to explain or origin. You are. I am arguing for the supernatural so I am by any means obligated to validate my claims in terms of science. You however are obligated to validate your claims against science since you are arguing for naturalism.
Science is about explaining things that are observed. History is not observable.
I must say that not even in a trillion years will science ever figure out origin of the universe they can only continue to guess, suppose, assume, theorise and hypothesise. :rolleyes:
Science is necessary in a discussion like this. Science is an explanation of things that we have observed. If you aren't using science, then you are just making things up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
Again the assuption of naturalism. It is an assuption not a fact. Why should I use science to explain origin when science has not observed the origin of the universe? A Scientist's guess is as good as a homeless guy's on the street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
You're talking poop. You see a tree covered in leaves, and some leaves underneath the tree, you can infer that the leaves fell from the tree, especially if the leaves on the ground are of the same type as those on the tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
You don't need to be there in order to make inferences.
Science does not assume naturalism, but since there is no evidence for the supernatural, then naturalism is all that we've got to go with.
The big bang is a theory, not a guess, and there are many evidences which point to it being correct.
You observed the Big Bang?Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Lol!! What an intelligent and well reasoned answer!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
And what, pray tell, is the scientific definition of "poop"?
Exactly!! And you see life, you see the intricate nerves and blood vessels in living beings and you can infer that an intelligent being designed them.Quote:
You see a tree covered in leaves, and some leaves underneath the tree, you can infer that the leaves fell from the tree, especially if the leaves on the ground are of the same type as those on the tree.
You don't need to observe them? Yet you said:Quote:
You don't need to be there in order to make inferences.
Quote:
Science is necessary in a discussion like this. Science is an explanation of things that we have observed. If you aren't using science, then you are just making things up.
No. Science does not assume naturalism. You do.Quote:
Science does not assume naturalism, but since there is no evidence for the supernatural, then naturalism is all that we've got to go with.
True science is the search for understanding the laws of God's universe.
But it was not observed, was it. So it is not a fact either.Quote:
The big bang is a theory, not a guess, and there are many evidences which point to it being correct.
Sincerely,
De Maria
No one was there in the same vein that no one was there at your god's creation. What we do see however is the evidence that is the basis of the Big Bang theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Correction. You see something which you don't understand and ascribe to it the explanation that it is from the Big Bang. That is not proof. That is speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
[.Quote:
QUOTE=Capuchin]You're talking poop
:rolleyes:
Quote:
You see a tree covered in leaves, and some leaves underneath the tree, you can infer that the leaves fell from the tree, especially if the leaves on the ground are of the same type as those on the tree.
You don't need to be there in order to make inferences.
Question for you... has man ever observed a leaf falling from a tree? Yes.
Another question... has man ever observed the origin of the earth? No.
We are not comparing apples to apples here, you are going to have to do better than that. Yes, we can make inferences based on premises and assuptions that are unknown or uknowable.. beter known as guess work. I study science so I know there is a lot guess work. Believe me.
You assume naturalism. You just made an absolutely false statement. There is an overwhelming amount of both testimonial and empirical evidence to prove the supernatural. Just because you do not consider the evidence as suffient does not mean the evidence is not there.Quote:
Science does not assume naturalism, but since there is no evidence for the supernatural, then naturalism is all that we've got to go with.
One could even argue that the fact that the universe exists (thus far) is supernatural because we have not found a "natural" explanation of its existence.
There have even been double-blind scientific studdies done on the supernatural read this below.
Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer
The big bang is a theory, not a guess, and there are many evidences which point to it being correct.
The big bang theory should be re-named the big joke theory. Your belief in it despite overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax is merely faith. So I don't share the same blind faith in that theory.
The problem is that saying god did doesn't expand human knowledge. What if Edward Jenner had just said small pox is the will of god instead of developing a vaccine for it? What if all of our great thinkers had just stopped and said god did lets go got get a beer? Do you really want to live in the dark ages again?
Your right a lot of science is assumed. So what? That is why things that are theory are still theory. A theory is better than guessing though and if you had ever attended a science class you would know that. In order for a theory to be a theory it has to fit the existing evidence it also can not have contradicting evidence. All it takes for a theory to no longer be theory is one piece of evidence that proves it wrong. Of course this whole paragraph is irrelevant because since you don't like the definition of scientific theory, you simply ignore it and use the common definition because it fits your argument better.
The problem is that you are attributing a characteristic to believers, which we hardly own.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Jews and Christians, for instance, believe we have a mandate from God to learn about and conquer the problems of the world.
Genesis 1 28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.
That is why the majority of the world's great thinkers have been Jewish or Christian.
Religion of History's 100 Most Influential People
Edward Jenner himself was a Christian:
Edward Jenner 1749-1823 Anglican
100 Scientists Who Shaped World History
Thanks for admitting that.Quote:
Your right a lot of science is assumed.
Very simple. Since "a lot of science is assumed", then it should be made clear that it is assumed rather than being taught as being factual.Quote:
So what?
Amen!! That is exactly what we've been saying. But many here insist that theories are facts.Quote:
That is why things that are theory are still theory.
Thanks for being honest.
Did any Christian here claim that a scientific theory was not better than a blind guess? If and until the best theory is disproven, it remains the best educated guess we can make. But being the best educated guess does not make it a fact until it is proven a fact.Quote:
A theory is better than guessing though
Twelve years of Public School and 4 years of college. What makes you think I never attended a science class?Quote:
and if you had ever attended a science class you would know that.
Oh, I know. Since I disagreed with you and you have now admitted you were wrong, you feel the need for the obligatory put down in order to lift your ego.
Ok. Have at it.
The reason it's a theory and not a fact is because it fits some of the existing evidence but not all of the existing evidence.Quote:
In order for a theory to be a theory it has to fit the existing evidence it also can not have contradicting evidence.
Not so. There are many theories which remain viable under certain circumstances but not others. The attraction of bodies or gravity for instance, works with larger bodies but not with microscopic particles.Quote:
All it takes for a theory to no longer be theory is one piece of evidence that proves it wrong.
Lol!! There you go again. Ok, if it makes you feel better.Quote:
Of course this whole paragraph is irrelevant because since you don't like the definition of scientific theory, you simply ignore it and use the common definition because it fits your argument better.
Bottom line though, you've already admitted you were wrong and that we were right. A scientific theory is still a theory and not a fact AND much of what is passed on as science today is assumed. That is all we were proving.
Sincerely,
De Maria
I don't believe there is a god, I just can't see any factual reason to believe there is one that's all.
I believere there is a god, but I don't believe any religion is truly that accurate
Correction, you don't understand about red shift or doppler effect so you ascribe it to a god in the same way the ancient didn't understand where thunder came from and ascribed it to a god.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
I really hope you see the flaw in this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:12 PM. |