14 Jan 19
1 edit
@sonship saidOne of the many things people accuse Theist of is that we use God to fill in the
@KellyJayIncredible odds and that is if everything is all there and the only thing being done is arranging things. The other thing I see as problematic are specific ingredients and space time.
The point was very well made in the video. Its not long.
The scenario he used for a hypothetical was very, very lenient and accommodating.
Towards the end th ...[text shortened]... , all ingredients being ready at the same time in that particular place.
Beyond unlikely.
gaps, it can happen for us yes, but this is the largest example of that of all. There
isn't anyone who can say this is how it happen and why with certainty there is
to much unknown. Yet they think they can even suggest Occam's razor points
them to a godless solution without grasping what is required, so even making that
statement is a leap of faith, it most certainly isn't being done with all of the
variables or processes well known.
What has been said is that due to deep time the gaps will one day be filled, we can
figure it out is an acknowledgement it isn't known now. For some things that isn't
a big deal acknowledging that, others it is a statement of faith that may not be
true, so then suggesting we can apply best known explanations to something so
complex is leaping beyond the evidence, there is no way to know what is the best
explanation for something beyond us with so much we cannot even offer a solid
explanation for.
With what we know now it is that the only way something like that can be put
together is through an intelligent agent, no more different that books require
an author, or a programming requires a coder. It takes a mind bent on avoiding
the acknowledgement that there is a difference between the design of snowflake
and the design of a living system.
It's also interesting to note that we use God on many things that are not gaps, nor have we ever claimed to be gaps.
For instance, if we say that God sent a rainstorm, are we actually saying that rain occurred without a storm or something unscientific? No, we are saying that a natural, scientific event (that can be explained through scientific means) occurred with the will of God.
Likewise, when we say that someone was gifted from God with a talent, like Michael Phelps, we are not questioning the nature of his talent or the physical aspects that have propelled him to success.... We are suggesting that God has worked within the framework of the natural world to do something.
It reminds me of something that Billy Graham's granddaughter said when asked about the problem of evil int he world -- how can there be so much evil with no solution, they ask, and she answered that there was a solution: God put you on the world to do something abotu it.
Suddenly I am reminded of Levinas and the way he suggested that people are fully responsible for everything in the world. He credited this as being a part of the Russian mindset as well -- which was very interesting...
I really god to read some more Levinas.
@kellyjay saidTo me, Christianity - in its scripture - has not offered convincing answers to the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about! To me, at best, it may have offered an allegory.
Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?
Are these questions beyond the scope of science?
Can we know all there is only using science?
So ~ to all those YEC ideologues out there [although, I'm not sure how many there are in this community - aside from KellyJay - now that RJHinds and josephw are no longer posting] ~ I ask: why not look at "science" in a different way?
Why not see scientists as God's creatures, exercising their God-given talents – even if many of them do not acknowledge they were “given” them – and their ostensibly God-given natural curiosity and determination, to push the knowledge of humanity ~ God's creation ~ to its apparent boundaries and beyond, revelling in the astounding capacity of the God-given human spirit, to delve deeper and deeper into the wondrous realities of the earth and the universe ~ God's creation, as you would have it ~ and to truly marvel at what this creation is and how it works?
Why not just look upon scientists as part of God's creation, then, instrumental in exploring that creation in this way and not get sidetracked by whether or not they just so happen to subscribe to 'answers' that Judaism settled upon and that you subscribe to, or the breakaway religion that Judaism gave rise to?
Why does it matter to you if scientists are believers or non-believers? Surely you believe it is God’s creation that they are examining? Whether they believe that it is God’s creation that they are examining should hardly matter to you if you are confident in your belief and faith that it is.
Why is it important to you to reject the endeavours and insights and discoveries of people who are finding out how this universe – designed and deliberately constructed according to your beliefs – actually works, and then marvel at its design and construction, even if they still don’t see it your way?
Why expect all these brilliant, talented, inquisitive humans to simply settle for pseudoscientific explanations that you just so happened to have settled for?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Jan 19
@fmf saidThe answers offered in scripture may not be convincing to you due to the blinders you are wearing.
To me, Christianity - in its scripture - has not offered convincing answers to the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about! To me, at best, it may have offered an allegory.
So ~ to all those YEC ideologues out there [although, I'm not sure how many there are in this community - aside from KellyJay - now that RJHinds and josephw are no longer posti ...[text shortened]... ns to simply settle for pseudoscientific explanations that you just so happened to have settled for?
15 Jan 19
@fmf saidYou don't look at all the different views. When you were confronted with a few instead of looking at them for yourself, even after badgering me for them, you just said that’s all old stuff nothing new here without ever viewing them. You want to assume that everything you were being confronted with was just to back up scripture letting you off the hook in your mind. Then you wanted to direct me where I should put some of the things brought to you, so others could look at them, you wanted to see how they evaluated those things. None of them were asking for this, you were, and you refused to look at them.
To me, Christianity - in its scripture - has not offered convincing answers to the questions of how the universe was formed and how humanity came about! To me, at best, it may have offered an allegory.
So ~ to all those YEC ideologues out there [although, I'm not sure how many there are in this community - aside from KellyJay - now that RJHinds and josephw are no longer posti ...[text shortened]... ns to simply settle for pseudoscientific explanations that you just so happened to have settled for?
To you Christianity is not true, you refuse to look at and compare the various scientific hypothesis to see which ones are closer to reality and truth. Science is looking for the best possible explanations, so refusing to look at possible causes to maintain a bias isn’t science which is what you have done. Your accusations by suggesting what I’m doing is misusing science to bolster became laughable, it was exactly what you did.
Trying to maintain your prejudice against Christianity you spend more time talking about the things not said by me to boost your bias, since I don't use the young earth as an argument. You then refuse to look at what actually is being brought up, then insult it without looking at it, suggesting it is less than real science, as if you knew what that was. Do a little real science, look at the arguments, and see which competing hypothesis is closer to reality, which ones can explain things without contradictions.
I don't think you will, for reasons I have already given you, I think you fear you may be wrong so instead of treating this honestly, you belittle without even looking these as pseudoscientific explanations, all the while claiming you really want to know. You should have no real issue with anyone telling you their views if you agree with them or not, If you ask someone why, at least have the decency to follow up on their answers what is the worst that could happen, truth will be confirmed in what you believe, or you must change your mind to accommodate truth, saying nothing new here is a dodge something else you accuse others of doing all the time.
15 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidI don't feel any "fear" in the face of your religious beliefs. Not at all. I just feel curiosity. I'm curious as to why your "faith" makes you want to pass off pseudoscience as science? Why do you feel it needs bolstering in that way?
You don't look at all the different views. When you were confronted with a few instead of looking at them for yourself, even after badgering me for them, you just said that’s all old stuff nothing new here without ever viewing them. You want to assume that everything you were being confronted with was just to back up scripture letting you off the hook in your mind. Then you ...[text shortened]... te truth, saying nothing new here is a dodge something else you accuse others of doing all the time.
15 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidI don't have "prejudice against Chrsitianity". I don't have "prejudice against Hinduism". I don't have "prejudice against Islam". Etcerera. "Prejudice" is such a strange word for you to use. I simply lack belief. I am a non-believer. If I found Christianity credible, I would be a Christian. If I found Judaism credible, I would be Jew. It's not about "prejudice".
Trying to maintain your prejudice against Christianity
15 Jan 19
@fmf saidYou claim what I have presented is pseudoscience so show me what I have
I don't feel any "fear" in the face of your religious beliefs. Not at all. I just feel curiosity. I'm curious as to why your "faith" makes you want to pass off pseudoscience as science? Why do you feel it needs bolstering in that way?
presented and show me why this fits that definition?
Presenting reasons for one's beliefs in a place of competing ideas it is a common
practice to use all of the best arguments. Belittling ideas without even reading
them is a sign of weakness, why do you feel the need to do that? Putting words
into other's mouths they didn't say so you can argue against them is also a sign of
weakness whey do you bring up the young earth since I never use that as a
debating point?
Why do you ask me to show you why I believe what I do and hide when you are
given what you ask for you refuse to look at it?
15 Jan 19
@fmf saidROFL yea, right!
I don't have "prejudice against Chrsitianity". I don't have "prejudice against Hinduism". I don't have "prejudice against Islam". Etcerera. "Prejudice" is such a strange word for you to use. I simply lack belief. I am a non-believer. If I found Christianity credible, I would be a Christian. If I found Judaism credible, I would be Jew. It's not about "prejudice".
15 Jan 19
@kellyjay saidIf you really don't know what "pseudoscience" is [as opposed to "science"], then I suggest you debate all this with a religious person who already agrees with you.
You claim what I have presented is pseudoscience so show me what I have
presented and show me why this fits that definition?