 saan-kpa says: *literal interpretations - referring to the Bible "The heavens declare the glory of the LORD." "Since the creation of the world His [God's] invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's languageCircular reasoning. He sees evidence because he believes he's seeing evidence. "Circular reasoning. He sees evidence because he believes he's seeing evidence." But you have to read the whole article to know why he believes he's seeing evidence. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged asThis isn't very convincing. The alternate hypothesis, "I know there is a god," is not falsifiable. It is impossible to prove wrong: no matter how long you look, a believer can just say you haven't looked in the right place. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. It is a threshold issue in the scientific method. The hypothesis,"There is no god" is falsifiable: it could easily be proven to be wrong by presenting a "sample"... But he wasn't making a scientific hypothesis. He was making a personal assertion. Leave it up to him to be irrational, illogical, and bank on improbabilities if he wants. That's why it's his faith. I didn't post this clip to dissect Collins's logic; I was actually saving it to show believers that it was okay to trust in science, too. The dichotomy between science and religion has never been a personal problem for me, because I don't believe I need scientific proof of the existence or character of God. Matter of fact, when a scientific theory is adequately proven you don't need faith for that belief. I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith.I'd have to agree that a scientifically proven theory is just another revelation to fallible human beings of truths that have always existed. "I'd have to agree that a scientifically proven theory is just another revelation to fallible human beings of truths that have always existed." Ooooo....debbyski, I like that! there are things in life worth believing without proof. i believe the folks i grew up with are my real parents, not because of some genetic proof, which i never even tested. not because some piece of document said so. not because there were reliable witnesses when my mother gave birth to me. it may seem so unscientific, but because i felt they loved me as their son, that was enough proof for me. this sense of awe for nature and to attribute it to God might be based on sheer emotion, one that i have felt deeply. it makes the act of reasoning it out meaningless. why reason out this sense of joy? why reason out this sense of joy?I can understand how this argument compels many people. It doesn't work for me because I personally get a lot more joy when I know the thing that I'm happy about is supported by my ability to reason. I wouldn't enjoy love then so much? It sure can't be reasoned either. Chuckle chuckle.. Sure it can. Chuckle. I reason through mine all the time, and if I ever noted that my relationship were unreasonable, I wouldn't enjoy it. I would end it. I am a great believer in science. It's my chosen profession. The more I learn though, the more I realize how little we know. There are moments when science meet religion. Moments like the Big Bang, the exact moment of conception, NDE's, the nature of photons (wave or particle), quantum physics and so on. Underneath all that science, no matter how far you go, you are still left with a sense, that there is something else underneath it all. THAT something is what I call God. I can not reasonably explain the above examples to you, but I enjoy and rejoice in them no less because of it. Just like with love...  Saying, "it's illogical, but I believe anyway" would be more honest than attempting an argument from ignorance. Okay, you were right. I was being dishonest. I don't actually rejoice as such. That would look silly. Ha ha! But other than that, my awe or respect for, that there may be more between Heaven and Earth and then we may know, is nothing more than the humble acknowledgement of the fact, that I do not know everything. (and neither do you) That can in no way be dishonest. But if it makes you happy to say so, then ok. I won't argue with you.  Arguments from ignorance is the reason we have opinions. They can shine a light on an argument, it just might not be the light we expected. When I was small I believed that creation would have been a matter of a wave of the hand, however with so much time on his hands, there was no reason for for God to be anything but logical and practical. Has it occurred to anyone than God, being credited with intelligence, would like to be able to explain creation to himself as a rational progression, So when the kids started asking questions about how things worked, there would be a better answer than "Because that's the way they should be" The Old testament was written from the perspective of a child a... |
View the Top Clips from May 3, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
