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
It's official - 2023 is Already World's Hottest Year, with a month to go
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="public hermit" data-source="post: 77485108" data-attributes="member: 421854"><p>That's a good point, and I agree. but it doesn't really change anything.</p><p></p><p>The claim was that those scientists who witnessed x are few in number and in an elite position to evaluate the evidence. I agree with that since I have not (could not) do the work, myself. But I accept their witness that the observations have been made and calculations have been done as a credible witness. And I accept it because it is a live option for being disproven. I'm an idiot, but there are others that can disprove it, and they also agree.</p><p></p><p>Part of what makes Christian faith an act of faith is because, as things stand now, the witness of the apostles to the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit's witness to us, cannot be disproven. We'll see one day, perhaps, but such claims are not up for observation, experiment, verification. The distance of stars, however, is a live option for being disproven. There is a lot of faith involved with science, thats true, but it's a different kind because it's a community dealing with empirical, verifiable evidence.</p><p></p><p>So I think it is still the case that if one can accept the apostolic/Holy Spirit's witness, granting credulity to well worn scientific claims should be a no brainer.</p><p></p><p>Which is more worthy of being believed based on testimony? That which can neither be proven nor disproven or that which could be disproven, has been tested, and still stands? I say the latter. That doesn't mean the former is not worthy of credulity, but the latter is much easier to accept and should be a non-issue.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="public hermit, post: 77485108, member: 421854"] That's a good point, and I agree. but it doesn't really change anything. The claim was that those scientists who witnessed x are few in number and in an elite position to evaluate the evidence. I agree with that since I have not (could not) do the work, myself. But I accept their witness that the observations have been made and calculations have been done as a credible witness. And I accept it because it is a live option for being disproven. I'm an idiot, but there are others that can disprove it, and they also agree. Part of what makes Christian faith an act of faith is because, as things stand now, the witness of the apostles to the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit's witness to us, cannot be disproven. We'll see one day, perhaps, but such claims are not up for observation, experiment, verification. The distance of stars, however, is a live option for being disproven. There is a lot of faith involved with science, thats true, but it's a different kind because it's a community dealing with empirical, verifiable evidence. So I think it is still the case that if one can accept the apostolic/Holy Spirit's witness, granting credulity to well worn scientific claims should be a no brainer. Which is more worthy of being believed based on testimony? That which can neither be proven nor disproven or that which could be disproven, has been tested, and still stands? I say the latter. That doesn't mean the former is not worthy of credulity, but the latter is much easier to accept and should be a non-issue. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
It's official - 2023 is Already World's Hottest Year, with a month to go
Top
Bottom