Evidence vs. Believe (A Tale of Two Bunnies)

[driewerf]

Then you'll spend a long time looking for extra puzzle pieces that aren't there.

This is how your logic applies to the OP.

Puzzle is finished. There is no duck

Atheist bunny: There you go. Each piece has been used, and the puzzle is complete. There's no duck.

Creationist bunny: There's more puzzle pieces.

Atheist bunny: Where? There's no more pieces. There's nothing to suggest there are more pieces. Why do you think there are more pieces?

Creationist bunny: That's the only way we can have a duck. If there are more pieces. So there must be more pieces.

to quote some one:

keep looking.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no serious scientist in the world that would ever say all the peices to the unknown have been found.

Indeed:

Look what I found:

Surveys of the sky over the last decade have revealed that the composition of the Universe is largely unknown to us.

SOURCE

 

[Tiberius]

You should perhaps rethink that. Of course there are many more puzzles, and more pieces than we will ever find in our life times. You don't really think that we know everything about everything already do you? There is no serious scientist in the world that would ever say all the peices to the unknown have been found.

You didn't understand that the puzzle is a metaphor for the universe? And as we learn more and more how the universe works (getting more pieces), the available places for God grew fewer and fewer.

 

[Chris81]

Actually the bunnies just had the wrong box cover when they were assembling the puzzle. Silly rabbits, why didn't they just go to the game shelf and find the right box cover?

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually the bunnies just had the wrong box cover when they were assembling the puzzle. Silly rabbits, why didn't they just go to the game shelf and find the right box cover?

It's a metaphor for how myopic science really is.

 

[Reine]

You didn't understand that the puzzle is a metaphor for the universe? And as we learn more and more how the universe works (getting more pieces), the available places for God grew fewer and fewer.

I guess that depends on your perspective. I said originally that I was looking at what was beyond the box, not just at the box. I think that kind of thinking is fairly limited when there is so much more to learn. You view the wold, (I think), based on what science can prove. I am looking at a much larger picture than that. I am looking at what is possible and has not yet been proven by science. I am also looking at subjective personal values that are unique to me, and science is not able to determine for me. I don't even think we are talking about science versus creation at this point, because I already stated that I do think science has evolution correct. I think we have begun disccussing the existence of God. You are saying that in your view that science proves there is no God. I simply disagree with that statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that depends on your perspective.

The OP is indicative of what scientists do best: stand around puzzled and yak themselves to death behind closed doors labeled: PEER REVIEW IN PROGRESS.

(I think -- )

 

[Gracchus]

When I was a child, some sixty years ago, my family used to do jig-saw puzzles. Some were quite large and we needed the whole dining-room table for several days to assemble them.

There was a line of puzzles out that did NOT have a picture on the box, but that was not much of a handicap. Simply by looking at the pieces we could usually tell what elements were in the completed puzzle and even a cursory examination would easily rule out many things that were not. And as we put together more and more pieces we gained more and more information about how the elements were arranged.

There is no duck in the puzzle.

 

[Blayz]

The OP is indicative of what scientists do best: stand around puzzled and yak themselves to death behind closed doors labeled: PEER REVIEW IN PROGRESS.

(I think -- )

Interesting. Replace "scientist" with "Christian" and drop the last part of the sentence and we get from what you think to what I think

 

[Gracchus]

The OP is indicative of what scientists do best: stand around puzzled and yak themselves to death behind closed doors labeled: PEER REVIEW IN PROGRESS.

But, closed doors or not, what comes out must stand scrutiny and criticism in the full light of day.

(I think -- )

That is a statement of faith, which you propose without supporting evidence.

 

[No Time]

It's a metaphor for how myopic science really is.

You all know there's a God because you were told there's a God and you were told by people who themselves were told, nowhere will you find anyone who can actually show you there's a God, that's why you need Faith.

People who believe in God believe because they want to believe in God, whether there really is a God or not is of no importance to them because for them the God is real because they want it to be real, in order to believe one must first need to believe, children don't need to believe so they must be made to need, tell them they are full of sin then tell them God is the only way to wash away that sin, it's circular logic but it more often than not works.

Good indoctrination will end with the person believing with every fibre of their being that they were the ones who found out everything for themselves, no one but no one influence them in any way shape or form, they came to believe what they believe all by themselves their decision to believe as they believe was ALL their own work, ridiculous? of course it is but you try telling them that.

Christians know that most Muslims are Muslim because they had Muslim parents and were born in Muslim countries but when it comes to their religion it was everyone for themselves, no one influenced anyone and all Christians found their religion all by themselves.

Not one of them, Muslim or Christian likes the idea that they only believe what someone else wanted them to believe, [how dare you even suggest it]

 

[razeontherock]

I do not believe the concept of faith is virtuous, thus I do not adhere to it. If your beliefs have manifestations in reality, show me those manifestations.

This amounts to "lalala, I can't hear you." I was supposed to be dead 30 years ago; medical science has no reason for me to live. CF is full of testimonies; your request here is not sincere.

Faith doesn't work in any facet of life.

That's simply false. Correct statements that are related:

1) You have no idea what Christian Faith is
2) You have no such experience

Why should I let it dictate my beliefs?

Considering you have no idea what Faith is and you therefore have no experience with it, you shouldn't. And I don't see anyone suggesting otherwise.

Faith is a concept that grew to huge importance the moment religious people realized they had no evidence for their beliefs.

Stop your flaming. We could both think of a million ways for me to make a parallel statement about atheism and/or atheists, none of which would either really pertain nor help our conversation here. All your exhibiting with this comment here is prejudice, which is something you'd be better off ridding yourself of. (Not to mention delusion, ignorance, etc)

In the Biblical stories, Thomas was allowed to touch the wounds on Jesus' wrists. That's all I'm asking for -- a chance to be Thomas. Why is that so much to ask?

This is a comment with some merit, and a question worth asking! People sometimes wrongly assume this is why Thomas believed; it wasn't, and you can tell that from his reply. What happened is he got the same revelation from the Father that Peter did, which is to recognize that the man Jesus was "the Christ," the Promised Messiah that has been spoken of throughout our species' history. Ask God for that same thing! (If you want to ask God to be able to touch Jesus' wounds, there are some problems with that that should be obvious to you)

 

[razeontherock]

"Faith" and "Truth" are opposites.

You have no idea what Faith is, nor why the premise of this thread is absurd

 

[razeontherock]

Hola!
So, to use our brains is wrong? While it is just our braininess that distinguishe us from other animals, we shouldn't be using it!

Way to say that we our not allowed to think about christianity's teachings... because what? Are you affraid that when we think about we see how stupid it is?

None of this is responsive to what I said. Instead you make baseless accusations, falsely framed as innocent questions. Guaranteed you would not even dare to ask such things face to face, why do so online?

The Christian Faith is 100% rational, but there is not a single rational line of questioning about it presented in this thread. You might think about that the next time you get to feeling all enlightened and intellectually superior.

 

[razeontherock]

Did you see the last frame of the comic? The entire puzzle, but for one piece, was in place. The bunny with faith still said that it was a duck even though the evidence said otherwise. It doesn't require faith to believe that the puzzle had Winnie the Pooh and Tigger. You can LOOK and see for yourself that it has those two characteris, no faith required. It is those that ignore the evidence and rely on faith that are represented by the bunny that says "It's a duck". Those bunnies are creationists. Just look at AV. He tells the evidence to take a hike. That is faith.

No that is NOT Faith. The Bible is a book about God, (or rather how man can have a relationship with Him and why we might want to) who can't be seen with human eyes. The concept of the OP is merely tilting at windmills ... (or at best creationists that really don't know what Faith is either yet, but at least are struggling to grasp it which is better than what the scoffers here are doing)

 

[razeontherock]

I posted the picuture above to demonstrate how there can be picutures within picutres. Here is another one:

If someone mad an entire puzzle out of just one portion of this picture... it may lookk like someone's eye. If another puzzle was made from another portion it may look like lips, and yet another one would only look like trees and sky. When you put the all the puzzles together, it becomes a face or trees and clouds. Do you see both are correct? I am suggesting that the bunny that was moving on faith could also see the begining of a much larger picture that science is a part of, as I do.

And here is where those that decry worshiping the Bible as God have a point:

the physical pages of the Bible do not contain Jesus, as He can not be limited. We can get a glimpse here and there, and in our better moments a snapshot. Yet HE remains unaltered by our limited perception

 

[razeontherock]

This, of course, points to a common designer, not a common ancestor.

False dichotomy

 

[razeontherock]

Interesting. Replace "scientist" with "Christian" and drop the last part of the sentence and we get from what you think to what I think

That's only because you don't know any Christians with a living Faith

 

[razeontherock]

You all know there's a God because you were told there's a God and you were told by people who themselves were told, nowhere will you find anyone who can actually show you there's a God, that's why you need Faith.

Why do you babble on about that which you do not understand?

 

[AV1611VET]

But, closed doors or not, what comes out must stand scrutiny and criticism in the full light of day.

That's why we had Thalidomide children rolling around, isn't it?

Thalidomide is one example in history where our children broke the [peer review] tie -- but what a price!

In fact, Thalidomide showed that a new-born child can pwn scientists.