Yusuf Evans
Well-Known Member
Then both our arguments are moot, because science can't assert the non-existence of a creator.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not up to us to prove there is no creator. It's up to those who make the assertion to provide the evidence.
Then both our arguments are moot, because science can't assert the non-existence of a creator.
But I can, if there's no evidence for it.
Why not?
Why not? Because the scientific answer is no? It seems to me that this can be the only real reason why people claim that science can say nothing about the existence of a creator: because they still want to continue believing in one.You can choose not to believe in a creator, but you can't use science as justification for it; just as pure creationists can't use religous science as justification for creationism.
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we don't know some things. And what we do know handily rules out any creator deity as being obscenely unlikely. May future knowledge eventually overturn this? It is conceivable. But is it likely? About as likely, I'd say, as discovering that fire breathing dragons actually did exist here on Earth.What has science proven so far, that could debunk a creator? Nothing. Science is still evolving and we are continously finding creatures older than what we thought. We are in an "evolutionary" phase of science, so to speak, that is enabling us to learn more and more about how we came to be. Hell, scientists have yet to prove or disprove the existence of aliens.
Is the idea of a creator even falsifiable? For example, I don't know how science could debunk the idea of a deistic god that set the universe into motion using natural processes. And without a creator being falsifiable it doesn't belong in science. It's an unsupported entity, the very think that Occam's Razor eliminates.What has science proven so far, that could debunk a creator? Nothing. Science is still evolving and we are continously finding creatures older than what we thought. We are in an "evolutionary" phase of science, so to speak, that is enabling us to learn more and more about how we came to be. Hell, scientists have yet to prove or disprove the existence of aliens.
Then both our arguments are moot, because science can't assert the non-existence of a creator.
I don't think he's advocating teaching the Bible. Look at his faith icon.But it doesn't matter. There's no reason anyone should consider a creator at all when it comes to real world application. You can't use the teachings of the bible to make medicine or computers or space craft or anything.
Look, the point I'm trying to make here is this: You can argue for creationism until you're red in the face, but it will not make any difference. The only potential outcome of teaching creationism in classrooms is a negative one.
You can choose not to believe in a creator, but you can't use science as justification for it...
The simple fact of the matter is that whether or not a creator is responsible for the intentional creation of our universe is an empirical claim. You can't get around that statement.
You can choose not to believe in a creator, but you can't use science as justification for it;
and vice versa.I agree --- until "science" can build a machine that can do this ---
[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]
--- they can keep their clipboards out of Christianity.
I'd start learning Mandarin if I were you, it'll help when your company is taken over by the atheist Chinese
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?