Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Evolution and a supreme being.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
Apologies for taking this long to respond, I was away for the weekend with some people from church.areu4real? has asked you numerous times to talk about evidence outside of the bible. You haven't done so up to this point, yet now you are saying the bible is the beginning of the investigation? Well, that is interesting. Sounds like this discussion can go somewhere.
No. What I've corrected areu4real on is really simple. He said that one should ignore the Bible while looking to the case for Christianity. That's a paradox, if I ignore the Bible while looking to the case for Christianity then I have nothing to look at. Christianity is fundamentally founded on the Bible.
A more sensible approach, as I've pointed out would be to follow this kind of structure:
1) Look to what the Bible says.
2) Look to whether or not this is true in reality.
3) Form a conclusion.No, there is more to it than just seeing for yourself. If it was as you portray, then this radical transformation wouldn't be the case. You'd just see it for yourself. One doesn't.
Not quite. Simply put. In the case of atheism or any other philosophy which denies an absolute source of truth, then it is by and large impossible to tell whether or not A, B, C or D is true.
If however, there is an absolute standard of truth that has spoken in the world and is proactive in Creation as the Bible puts forward, then we can A) look to His word, and
see how reasonable it is in reality.
That's the intellectually honest approach.I'll be honest, when I hear this, my question is, ok what aspect of the sciences is it you don't understand? It is that or falling back to the first cause argument, as in what came before the big bang yada yada.
What I ask you, and other atheists who speak of science as being almost atheism's handmaiden is why exactly do you assume that? - I have no issue in accepting the Big Bang, or evolution. I don't see what the issue is in regarding them in light of God's creation.Formed the universe 13.7 billion years ago, this planet around 4.5 billion years ago with humanity as it currently stands around 100,000 years ago. A planet on which 99% of the species that existed no longer do so. A planet on which we are to imagine we are close to god, in its image, when really we are just a fused chromosome to seperate us from other apes...
Flawed argument. The Hebrew text when it speaks of God's image, the word used is t'selem, which can be rendered as reflection. It's that we have a likeness to God, insofar as we are able to commune with Him, and we were created to reflect, or be an image which bears His standards in the world. This is why the next section speaks of man's dominion.
This is why I've asked you to look at the structure of Genesis 1. That will show you clearly as to what the Bible is communicating.I just find it strange that an omni this that and the other would come out with a divine book that is purported to be perfect, and an objective account on it is nothing but an interpretative farce.
It's not an "interpretative farce". Genesis 1 is a powerful account that shows God as having all power and dominion over Creation. Genesis 2 is a powerful account that shows God's providence in pre-fall man.
I'm sorry if it is an "interpretative farce" to challenge some false assumptions about the Genesis text. I've shown you very clearly how the author of Genesis shows us that it is a poetic account which describes God's incredible creative power and authority.
I can't see much more to contribute on this point if all you're going to do is moan about things being an interpretative farce.I1) I don't have strong feelings on the matter. I'm not really convinced by it being the case the universe always existed, or the multiverse theory. I just look at how reality is in comparison to the holy books working from the now backwards, and seeing if a god is necessary in the picture. There are all these junctures at which god once fit in terms of understanding of reality, but those days are long gone.
2) Scientific understanding explains back to the point of the big bang, so therefore the god of the gaps would be to talk about this point. If we were to talk about a point after this, then it would just be a matter of discussing big bang cosmology or abiogenesis seeing as I think the evolution matter itself is somewhat settled. I don't know your level of understanding on any of these, and will not pretend to know.
1) I look at reality, and I see rather clearly on a number of grounds that I will respond to below that it is more likely that God exists rather than not. It is for that reason why I hope to warn people that they are making a mistake, and that they should repent and believe in the Gospel so that they will be saved from God's just condemnation. I have strong feelings about this, because I believe that all mankind needs to hear about Jesus Christ, and turn away from sin, and the rebellion against God. Not dwell in it. It's because I care that I post about these issues.
2) It's not a case of scientific understanding versus anything else. You misunderstand that I don't believe in a god of the gaps, but a God of the whole show. It's not as if science is somehow separated from anything else. Indeed, for the Christian who believes and acknowledges a Creator, science is observing the how of creation. Christian scientists including Isaac Newton honoured God in their work, they saw creation, and saw the very results of the hand of God at work. The idea that Christians are trying to wedge Christianity into science is unfounded, rather what Christians understand is that science is a description of God's creative power.
There are still many many questions which lie around the subject of how possibly we could be here, and how possibly this all came to be. Ultimately, it isn't an unreasonable one.
Pedant in another post said that there is a contradiction insofar as God could not create Himself. This is something that in philosophy is called an infinite regress, and has been dealt with in philosophy by many philosophers of many creeds. There is a difference between a contingent being (that which has a beginning a finite amount of time ago) and that which doesn't, a necessary being. Simply put, Christians have never claimed that God is a finite being. Had they done so, then hands down that would be a valid objection to the Gospel. Since Christians have said that God is a necessary being, this doesn't stand as a good logical objection to God as Creator.
This is only good logical sense. What has created the world, can't be within creation (I.E God couldn't create Himself, or indeed, the universe couldn't. What has created the world ultimately, must not be constrained by its conditions.Guess I'll have to go to the other thread to see some of the points you've raised there. Good that you can see Pascal's Wager for what it is.
Most people can. The problem for Pascal was that he lived in a rather Eurocentric world and based many of his assumptions on that principle. AKA Christianity or no Christianity.Ok, there is a lot here to break down. I don't want to take snippets and deal with it that way.
Logical necessity of causation: First cause? Anything that began to exist has a cause, except god. If you meant something else, you'll have to clarify. It just comes across as "God must exist because god must exist".
See above. It doesn't just come down to that. There's a logical reason why we separate infinite beings from contingent. There's also a reason why contingent beings need an infinite being to cause them. That's a key principle in the philosophy of religion.The Source and Sense of Morality: The bible is a moral document once you expunge the deplorable things it tells you to do. No one would kill one who works on the sabbath, yet it is one of the 10 commandments. I'm sure you've discussed the horrendous things the bible has in terms of it being a slavery endorsing document, not a word against it, the killing of people for minor transgressions... You know this, so I'm surprised you'd point this as a defensible position. It isn't.
The Bible doesn't tell me to do deplorable things. I can respond to each and every one of those claims, and I can also tell you why the New Covenant differs to the laws of Moses in this respect. The New Testament actually explains very clearly that we as Christians look to the Old Covenant in the light of Christ. In fact, we all deserve death for sin (Romans 1), but Jesus Christ by His grace has spared us from God's rightful condemnation, so that we can be forgiven and restore our relationship with God in the last days. I can show you passage, after passage, after passage that will explain that to you. Sin isn't "minor", it's living in contempt of the authority of God, and that is severe.
Now I'll explain what my point actually was rather than you assuming that it is. It's really simple. Let's pluck up a post that I did on this on boards.ie a while ago.Moral relativism fails at the first hurdle. It's all well and good until you hit the stumbling block of something that you must condemn.
Strict moral relativism has to fail. We all appeal to an universal morality whether we like it or not. When it comes to Stalin, Hoxha, Hitler and so on, the first instinct is to condemn. Why? Due to the fact that we know that it is universally unacceptable to do so.
Why do we appeal to each other "you should know better"? Aren't we expecting the other person to hold a common morality?
I know no human being who when they are wronged say "Ah well, different strokes for different folks". It doesn't work in practice and it fails immediately.
If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.
1. There exists a Moral Law.
2. Every law has a law giver.
3. Therefore there is a Moral Law giver.
Even if we object to be subordinate, if we appeal to universal morality we are subordinate to the Moral Law, and the Moral Law giver.Sin in the world: People do bad things, ergo god?
What's your point? You're not making this particularly clear.Resurrection: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2GM_g7VCJI
I do plan on looking in to the particulars on what evidence there is for this at some point. Though, a good first step would probably be getting more convinced on the issue of the historicity of Jesus.
Here's something I posted a few years ago, most people have responded to it by trying to claim that completely different claims were somehow similar to it.2) Christian history does not make sense without a Resurrection event:
Let's go through this bit by bit:
a. You have been with a charismatic preacher for 3 years in Israel,
b. You have seen this man endure trials of all sorts, and you have come to know His personal character during this time.
c. You see this man die.
x. -
d. You and the others who were with you at the time, spread the teachings of this individuals thousands of miles throughout the Gentile world, preaching that we can become a new Creation in Christ Jesus if we are baptized and confess that Jesus is Lord (2 Corinthians 5).
e. These men are zealous for the spiritual truths that this man taught throughout His worldly existence, even until the point of death, by stoning (James the Righteous - see Josephus' Jewish Antiquities), Thomas who is believed to have been gored with a spear in India, Peter said to be crucified upside down, James Son of Zebedee who was said to have been put to death by Herod in the book of Acts.
Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
If you cannot explain to me conclusively how all 11 disciples went through to the lengths that they did in a reasonable manner, then this will always give credence to something extraordinary having happened to bring these men to those lengths.
Then taking into account that in the accounts the mention of women running to the tomb would have been seen as laughable in Jewish society at the time, a lack of an attempt to cover this up would indicate that it was indeed the honest and frank truth of the situation.
There are more and more textual implications like these in the Gospels themselves.Authenticity of the New Testament As in, what, the dating methods show it to be written in the century or more after Jesus supposedly would have died? Can you imagine oral tradition going on for 100 years, and someone was to write something about one of today? Even with the internet as it is, it would be prone to errors. 100 years of oral tradition? Then, looking at the Council of Nicea... Scripture by popular vote.
This is also false. All of the New Testament books that are in the New Testament have been commonly used in Christian communities in the first century. How do we know this? Writings from those first Christian communities. Indeed, we know that it is authentic for another reason. That is, that we have 40,000 copies, all of which must come from a common source, and all of which vary in the time in which they were copied, and all of which are pretty much identical. 99.6% of the text of the New Testament is as it was when it was first written, that's on the basis of study done by Biblical scholars.
In comparison to any other ancient text in the world, that's phenomenal. If you're going to apply one standard of criticism to the Bible, you must also apply it to all other texts which are less certain than the Bible. That is, every single other ancient text in the world. Is that really reasonable? Do you really do that? I doubt it. So the next question is, why do you present this argument in respect to the Bible when you won't do so in respect to other texts.
Apologies for the image size, but this link will show you the facts on Biblical authenticity.Archaeology, Geology: Could you perhaps expound on these?Embarrassing details: *Cringe*
You definitely need to expand on that.
If you wanted to set up a religion which was for your own interest, would you present yourself as being disloyal as Peter did by denying Christ, would you present yourself as being selfish as James and John did when they asked Jesus who would be at His side in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you lived in a society where women were treated as lesser than men in testimony, would you put down that women were the first people to tell of the risen Jesus?
It's not the best PR piece for the disciples. It's not the type of thing that people would make up if they wanted to big up themselves.
Hardly cringeworthy to probe into whether or not the New Testament texts are written as fiction. The reality is that they don't seem to be irrespective of how much atheists might like to claim such.BRB, getting time machine :pac:See, more on this whole notion of this deity doesn't care about what you do, what type of person you are. I can't understand any love for this god. Sure follow the god if you believe it exists for sure, but respect for such a thing?
Why wouldn't God care about Creation, and most importantly why wouldn't God care about those who He put in dominion over it?I'm curious about your understanding on hell. Is it eternal damnation, eternal seperation, or eternal nothingness to you? And, also, do you believe one gets a brain enema to make those in heaven forget those left behind in one of those?
It seems very battered spouse syndrome to me.
Hell is everlasting torment. I want nobody to go there. Indeed, nobody has to go there.
Yeah, I mean much in the same way as the courts prosecuting for crime are the result of "battered spouse" syndrome.
God has authority over Creation. Therefore He can give standards as to how we should live in it. Standards which are actually for our own good rather than our own detriment. Likewise God has the authority to judge on the basis of those standards. We're all guilty, we've all done what is wrong.
God has been more than fair by saving anyone from His wrath by sending Jesus. It is good news that we are able to restore our relationship with God. Yet so many stubbornly refuse to listen to Him.We", nay.
Yes, we. That's why I'm telling you about this. The reality is, you've done wrong at some point in your life, as have I. That's crystal clear.But your entire philosophy is predicated on avoiding this line of reasoning. Well, avoiding might not be the best way to put it, but a blind spot, I think better conveys the meaning.
It's a rubbish argument. Asking why we need a reason when there is a reason already clearly explained to us is missing the point to say the least.
It brings us back to the question about the necessity of a Creator. If you can demonstrate that there is no need for a Creator (which I doubt anyone can do), then you can demonstrate there is no purpose to our existence.Care to provide some examples?
On a very very simple level, I didn't know anything about my clear rebellion against God. I knew extremely little about the Israelites and their ups and downs with God, and how telling they were of human nature. I knew extremely little about the Christian church in the New Testament after the Resurrection, and very little about Peter and Paul. I knew extremely little of God's coming and inevitable judgement, and I knew extremely little about the return of Jesus and the new Earth and the new Jerusalem where Jesus has secured for those who beleive in Him eternal life.
That's in short, and that's the fundamentals of the Gospel. There's much more I didn't know. Knowing these truths changed my life profoundly, and knowing these truths make me stand up for Jesus Christ in the world even if people hate it or perhaps me for it.0 -
And one stacks the deck if one says "Oh, that is true by reasoning type A, type B, type C, et cetera" and "Oh that was true for its time". Whatever is in the book will be justified, even if that justification is to gloss over it.philologos wrote: »A more sensible approach, as I've pointed out would be to follow this kind of structure:
1) Look to what the Bible says.
2) Look to whether or not this is true in reality.
3) Form a conclusion.
And if there isn't an absolute standard of truth?If however, there is an absolute standard of truth that has spoken in the world and is proactive in Creation as the Bible puts forward, then we can A) look to His word, and see how reasonable it is in reality.
Oh, on the issue of absolute truth... Is something morally good because it god said so? Or would something be morally good independent of that?
I tend to assume it because it has been shown to be the case time and time again. I don't wish to bog this thread down with more on this. You say you are knowledgeable on it so that's that.What I ask you, and other atheists who speak of science as being almost atheism's handmaiden is why exactly do you assume that? - I have no issue in accepting the Big Bang, or evolution. I don't see what the issue is in regarding them in light of God's creation.
I'm sorry. This constant cognitive dissonance is just something I'll not be able to get past.Flawed argument. The Hebrew text when it speaks of God's image, the word used is t'selem, which can be rendered as reflection. It's that we have a likeness to God, insofar as we are able to commune with Him, and we were created to reflect, or be an image which bears His standards in the world. This is why the next section speaks of man's dominion.
I have no doubt of any of that. I think the problem you'll find when talking to atheists like myself though is we may end up talking past each other. What I mean by this is it is trying to espouse the virtues of a particular god to a person who doesn't think any such entity exists.I have strong feelings about this, because I believe that all mankind needs to hear about Jesus Christ, and turn away from sin, and the rebellion against God. Not dwell in it. It's because I care that I post about these issues.
There are two steps to the problem. The problem of "Oh there is a god? I don't see anything to suggest this" and then to prove it is the particular deity that you or any other apologist will care to present.
The very types of arguments you can present derived from your holy book is something that can be presented by any adherent of any other faith, in short.
Religion has fundamentally adapted to reality as it gets perceived. I've often pondered if the free will VS determinism debate was to get to a point that it was a mainstay of thought that religion would be fine with its loss and come up with some reasoning behind it, and maybe even find verses to support this. Also, were intelligent life to be found on other planets, would verses that showed we should have expected this be pointed out.2) It's not a case of scientific understanding versus anything else. You misunderstand that I don't believe in a god of the gaps, but a God of the whole show. It's not as if science is somehow separated from anything else. Indeed, for the Christian who believes and acknowledges a Creator, science is observing the how of creation. Christian scientists including Isaac Newton honoured God in their work, they saw creation, and saw the very results of the hand of God at work. The idea that Christians are trying to wedge Christianity into science is unfounded, rather what Christians understand is that science is a description of God's creative power.
The type of interventionist deity that did all the trickery of the bible should certainly have the wisdom to see that perhaps a more up to date demonstration would be in order. This hasn't happened. No, instead those of faith will see the doubting Thomas as weak for not having faith.
There is something rather than nothing. We exist. We don't know what was at the beginning. Not quite ready to just stop questioning with appeals to the supernatural.Pedant in another post said that there is a contradiction insofar as God could not create Himself. This is something that in philosophy is called an infinite regress, and has been dealt with in philosophy by many philosophers of many creeds. There is a difference between a contingent being (that which has a beginning a finite amount of time ago) and that which doesn't, a necessary being. Simply put, Christians have never claimed that God is a finite being. Had they done so, then hands down that would be a valid objection to the Gospel. Since Christians have said that God is a necessary being, this doesn't stand as a good logical objection to God as Creator.
The essence of the infinite regression is there was something rather than nothing. Even assuming a god at this point, one would have a long way to go to prove that it was not a deistic type of god. The problem with many apologists, such as William Lane Craig is they try to defend a being in terms of a deistic god, and then jump from there to the god of the bible. It isn't employing logic particularly well, as I see it.See above. It doesn't just come down to that. There's a logical reason why we separate infinite beings from contingent. There's also a reason why contingent beings need an infinite being to cause them. That's a key principle in the philosophy of religion.
I'll provide some verses on some things here. The list will not be exhaustive.The Bible doesn't tell me to do deplorable things.
Slavery
(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT) However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Rape
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
(This could be in either)
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
A bit of mixed messages on whether or not the OT still applies, really... http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html
What is one to make of this? It is Romans 1:3..I can respond to each and every one of those claims, and I can also tell you why the New Covenant differs to the laws of Moses in this respect. The New Testament actually explains very clearly that we as Christians look to the Old Covenant in the light of Christ. In fact, we all deserve death for sin (Romans 1)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Some more from Romans.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
^ Er, no.
Not necessarily. I'll only use this in the case of people I do know. Otherwise, I wouldn't expect anything from a given person.Why do we appeal to each other "you should know better"? Aren't we expecting the other person to hold a common morality?
This is an appeal to subjectivity though.I know no human being who when they are wronged say "Ah well, different strokes for different folks". It doesn't work in practice and it fails immediately.
If there was an absolute moral law, this would imply a type of morality that is ageless. One that is perfect in all times and in all locations. This renders any defense of time, location or anything for things in the bible moot. You are shoehorning yourself in to a position I would really not like to be. You will have to declare such things as I have posted above are moral laws, as given by a perfect moral law giver.If we are to contend that a universal moral law does exist and commonalities in moral systems in the past explain this the following logic must apply.
1. There exists a Moral Law.
2. Every law has a law giver.
3. Therefore there is a Moral Law giver.
If there was an interventionist absolute perfect moral law giver creator entity I would expect better than what is presented in the bible. A lot better.
I took the bibles understanding of sin, and you were saying sin is in the world as if this was an argument for the existence of god. It isn't.What's your point? You're not making this particularly clear.
Please. I have seen this point be rebutted. I don't want to trawl through that thread again to find it, but from what I recall, there was a million or so people who'd go to a guy who proclaimed to be born of a virgin. I'm sure you recall this. The specific thing that was being replied to was about 11 people being so fanatical to a person.Now, what on earth can explain the difference between d and e. How on earth if you have seen your best friend, if you have seen this man who has testified to such truths while alive, could they possibly have endured to spread it as zealously as they did and until the point of death? It does not make sense unless something extraordinary happened inbetween both of these events. I'm not saying that this necessarily has to be the Resurrection, but it certainly gives credence to it.
I'll leave it to this to make the point people will do crazy things in the name of what they believe. You might expect in more rational times people would be more sane. http://listverse.com/2007/09/15/top-10-cults/
Honestly, I can't say I know much on the issue of when the books were written up. I have already got a backlog of books to read, so it will be some time before I get to actually read up on the subject. At some point, it'll be a discussion I'm willing to entertain. In the meantime... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTPk9dp_uxkThis is also false. All of the New Testament books that are in the New Testament have been commonly used in Christian communities in the first century. How do we know this? Writings from those first Christian communities. Indeed, we know that it is authentic for another reason. That is, that we have 40,000 copies, all of which must come from a common source, and all of which vary in the time in which they were copied, and all of which are pretty much identical. 99.6% of the text of the New Testament is as it was when it was first written, that's on the basis of study done by Biblical scholars.
Considering neither of us really know the exact circumstances in which the bible was written, how many people involved, over how long, asking for one person to account what they'd do is kind of missing the point.If you wanted to set up a religion which was for your own interest, would you present yourself as being disloyal as Peter did by denying Christ, would you present yourself as being selfish as James and John did when they asked Jesus who would be at His side in the Kingdom of Heaven. If you lived in a society where women were treated as lesser than men in testimony, would you put down that women were the first people to tell of the risen Jesus?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
My points exactly
Hence clearly at the core/base of Christianity is a claim there is a god to have done the revealing. Which is why I maintained that it was this claim and not the bible that was the primary basis for their postulations.
The rest I likely could not have said better myself.0 -
-
Question:
Answer (post #2):mylastparadigm wrote:can you use science to argue against the existence of a god?
Followed by 17 pages and 255 posts (and counting)No.
Well, I'm glad we wrapped that one up pretty quickly.
0 -
Well that was the answer to a different question. You can't use evolution to argue against the existence of God - it's simply not in its scope to do so - however you can argue against the existence of God when you have all science to draw from, in particular quantum physics.Answer (post #2):
Of course, prior to the development of quantum physics you could have used (Newtonian) science argue for the existence of God and perhaps in the future a new discovery will bring us back to that line. Or not.
But by then we'll probably all have our answer by then - one way or another - anyway
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The Corinthian wrote: »I St Paul ... understood the value of marketing to people who wanted to keep their foreskins and eat pork...
that was funny. 0 -
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 79126
-
-
-
-
I don't understand this expectation that we have to "disprove God". I'm not even convinced that I have to care about the possibility. If he/she/it wants my attention, he/she/it knows where to find me, allegedly.It could disprove that a god created us as we are or intervened in our evolution, but beyond that...?
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.
— Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement