Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is our perception of time restricting us?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="scombridae1969" data-source="post: 57141734" data-attributes="member: 262082"><p>To be honest, if a theist were to simply state that belief is an act of pure faith, I don't really have any problems with that. I am not a theist, but that would be more honest.</p><p></p><p>The problem for me is when theists try to provide rational, empirical justifications for belief - in other words, to suggest there is ultimately a science that undergirds a belief in a god. It is problematic because, simply put, no one has provided a compelling argument using science to show simply that there is strong evidence for the existence of a god. </p><p></p><p>Intelligent design, <strong>for example</strong>, does a great job of collecting data that has come by centuries of observation but concludes, basically, that all of this would be impossible without an intelligent designer. I can respect that sentiment. But it means nothing without first proving the existence of such a god. The big leap of faith in intelligent design isn't accepting the data that already exists - that does not necessarily require faith. The big leap of faith is to assert it must be an intelligent creator god that designed all of this. Why? Being redundant here - <strong>no one has scientifically proven the existence of a god</strong>. All ID does, ultimately, is to take data and then say that all we do not understand about origins points to [G]od's hand. But that argument works ONLY when one first assumes the existence of a god.</p><p></p><p>That is the essential shortcoming of ID or apologetics in general, imho. I felt strongly about this even before I became agnostic. In seminary, I could not understand what some of my fellow seminarians planned to accomplish by engaging in apologetics in a way that confronts science. </p><p></p><p>Science and creationism work in reverse - which is why science will always cast doubt on faith (until the existence of a god is actually proven). Science remains open to being wrong and continually revises the models and theories it employs with new discovery (as a whole - stubborn people are stubborn people regardless of background). But the "assumptions" made in science are based on observed data and facts.</p><p></p><p>The "assumptions" made in science are not at all like the assumptions made in faith. Scientific theories are not equally based on they same sort of speculations as faith - not at all. Religion relies ultimately on pure faith to assert that there is a god and then to go on and try and prove things like the veracity of scripture (and in the case of Christianity - creationism). At the risk of sounding flippant here (which is not my intent) the following argumentative loop does not work in a scientific arena:</p><p></p><p>1. The complexity we see has to point to an intelligent designer.</p><p>2. That designer is God.</p><p>3. I know God exists and that God created the universe because the scriptures tell us God exists and that God created the universe.</p><p>4. I know the scriptures are true because God gave us the scriptures.</p><p>5. God would not lie.</p><p>6. I know God would not lie because the scriptures tell us God would not lie.</p><p>7. The scriptures cannot lie because God gave them to us.</p><p></p><p>Please don't get me wrong - my point here is not to ridicule or dismantle faith. I just think it is hilarious when people try and combine the two into some theory of everything. At this point in time, science cannot with any integrity employ theism to add to theory. The assumption there (that god must exist) has no evidence that has the same value as scientific observation. Which is why I think creationists should keep their views to the church and home. Hey - prove the existence of a god and I might return to "faith" although it would no longer be an issue of faith.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="scombridae1969, post: 57141734, member: 262082"] To be honest, if a theist were to simply state that belief is an act of pure faith, I don't really have any problems with that. I am not a theist, but that would be more honest. The problem for me is when theists try to provide rational, empirical justifications for belief - in other words, to suggest there is ultimately a science that undergirds a belief in a god. It is problematic because, simply put, no one has provided a compelling argument using science to show simply that there is strong evidence for the existence of a god. Intelligent design, [B]for example[/B], does a great job of collecting data that has come by centuries of observation but concludes, basically, that all of this would be impossible without an intelligent designer. I can respect that sentiment. But it means nothing without first proving the existence of such a god. The big leap of faith in intelligent design isn't accepting the data that already exists - that does not necessarily require faith. The big leap of faith is to assert it must be an intelligent creator god that designed all of this. Why? Being redundant here - [B]no one has scientifically proven the existence of a god[/B]. All ID does, ultimately, is to take data and then say that all we do not understand about origins points to [G]od's hand. But that argument works ONLY when one first assumes the existence of a god. That is the essential shortcoming of ID or apologetics in general, imho. I felt strongly about this even before I became agnostic. In seminary, I could not understand what some of my fellow seminarians planned to accomplish by engaging in apologetics in a way that confronts science. Science and creationism work in reverse - which is why science will always cast doubt on faith (until the existence of a god is actually proven). Science remains open to being wrong and continually revises the models and theories it employs with new discovery (as a whole - stubborn people are stubborn people regardless of background). But the "assumptions" made in science are based on observed data and facts. The "assumptions" made in science are not at all like the assumptions made in faith. Scientific theories are not equally based on they same sort of speculations as faith - not at all. Religion relies ultimately on pure faith to assert that there is a god and then to go on and try and prove things like the veracity of scripture (and in the case of Christianity - creationism). At the risk of sounding flippant here (which is not my intent) the following argumentative loop does not work in a scientific arena: 1. The complexity we see has to point to an intelligent designer. 2. That designer is God. 3. I know God exists and that God created the universe because the scriptures tell us God exists and that God created the universe. 4. I know the scriptures are true because God gave us the scriptures. 5. God would not lie. 6. I know God would not lie because the scriptures tell us God would not lie. 7. The scriptures cannot lie because God gave them to us. Please don't get me wrong - my point here is not to ridicule or dismantle faith. I just think it is hilarious when people try and combine the two into some theory of everything. At this point in time, science cannot with any integrity employ theism to add to theory. The assumption there (that god must exist) has no evidence that has the same value as scientific observation. Which is why I think creationists should keep their views to the church and home. Hey - prove the existence of a god and I might return to "faith" although it would no longer be an issue of faith. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is our perception of time restricting us?
Top
Bottom