Enigma: My friend so good to debate you again.
Since science is a product of humans it is subject to our flaws and biases. However, unlike religion, science attempts to control for these flaws and imposes strict principles for discerning fact from fiction. Emotions and spirituality are not evidence because they are not objective, empirical, or refutable and are highly susceptible to conformation bias.
Here we go again. You make these statements about "your belief". but the evidence doesn't support your belief.
Please cite the specific evidence you are referring to.
First a little history about science and imperical research. Thru out history most researchers into what is now called science were people mostly men of religion. They believed in God and gave credit for their discoveries to God. Now today many people dismiss this by saying that they only said they believed in God because they had no choice. If they would actually do research into what the people wrote it would be obvious that is not the case.
The early scientists' personal beliefs regarding the teleological causes behind the data they generated are irrelevant. What's important is that they proliferated techniques that generated unbiased, empirical, and refutable data (data that directly conflicts with Biblical accounts).
The belief that all scienctific research is based strictly on imperical data and not emotion is also flawed. How many times have researchers found evidence of something and had the scientific community react on emotion and reject it? Or How many times have scientists falsified data out of pride?
Research done by competent scientists is based of empirical data. True, there are a few asshats who falsify data, but they never last for long because of the "open source" nature of science: a researcher's methodology must be clearly outlined in the published article so it can be replicated by other scientists.
Even your basis for rejecting God is out of emotion.
Please provide your evidence for this quote.
As I pointed out before. Evidence for the existance of God is all around us. Some people just chose to not see it.
Please provide the specific examples of this purported "evidence".
I was an athiest for many years. I thought that religion was the biggest scam out there. I still do in many ways. In my attempts to disprove the existance of God it eventually became clear that God exists.
cool story bro.
The only explaination of much of science is that some force of great power must have put it in motion. The possibility of it happening by accident would be impossible.
Ahhh the classic
god of the gaps fallacy. We don't know what caused the Big Bang, but when you don't know the answer to something, then you say "I don't know" not "I don't know, therefore, God". Religion may claim to have
all the answers, but that doesn't mean the answers are right.
As far as the big bang showing how old the universe is? It has been shown that the model used to predict it is flawed. It fails to take into account centrifical force. That as something is pulled in or is compressed, it spins faster. Like an ice skater when they pull their arms in they spin faster. When the universe was compressed it was spinning much faster. This would effect the rate of how time itself is measured. The rate of expansion is undeterminable so how old the universe is can not be determined. It was a rough estimate anyway. The scientific community is reacting on emotion and rejecting the evidence.
It's so ironic when people try to use science to refute science in the defense of an unscientific claim. Please provide specific references for your claims. I'll direct you to the link I posted before regarding the Big Bang as well as
this link. Just because you don't understand the information doesn't make it wrong.
The belief that religion doesn't self regulate is also in error. Religion has its own set of rules and tries to enforce them. Mostly they seek truth. Very old copies of religious texts have repeatedly been found and it has been shown time and again they are exactly the same as modern ones. The exception to this would be Christianity. They chose to rewrite the Bible over and over to suit whoever is writing it.
You said in
this thread, "Personally I believe that the Bible isn't flawed. It is the way humans use it or interpret it that is flawed." Yet I've seen you quote and endorse Bible verses, which are a product of a flawed human interpretation. So do you believe in the Bible or don't you? If so, what is the "true" version of the Bible that everyone is misinterpreting?
The only thing that can actually provide absolute imperical evidence is math. This is because math doesn't change.
While it's true that math is the only field in which conjectures can be absolutely proven, the notion of absolute proof is a red herring. Science cannot provide 100% absolute proof of its theories, but we can still gather enough evidence to make an "educated guess" that lands as close to truth (in this sense, a truthful statement corresponds to reality as it actually is) as possible.
All other fields are subject to change and that makes any evidence subject to change. This is why they are based on belief. An observer would have to believe that the evidence is still the same as when they measured it. How do they know that evolution hasn't changed their model. They would have to measure it continually. The fact that math exists to me and others is the best evidence that something of great intelligence created the universe and all that exists.
The evidence does not change, only the interpretation of the evidence changes. Sit at your desk and drop a ball. That's evidence for gravity. Drop the ball over and over. It's still going to fall towards the center of the earth every time, no matter if its done in Issac Newton's time or now. The fact that math exists is only evidence that reality operates in a logical, predictable, and observable manner. To take it as evidence for a higher intelligence is pure conformation bias (do you know what conformation bias means? If not, look it up).
Do you really think that something as complex, and universal, but so simple at the same time happened by accident? Just pooff came into being? Have you ever seen any complex thing or anything for that matter just come into existance? It must have been majic or something. LOL!
Your argument presumes that the universe has always been complex instead of increasing in complexity over time. To quote Voltaire, "... from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense".
The argument from design raises more questions than it answers. Since a designer must be more complex than its creation, the claim of a universe designed by God would require God to be more complex than the universe (which is already astoundingly complex). This naturally leads to the question of what designed God, and quickly becomes an infinite regression of designers. Where do you think god came from? Just pooff came into being? Have you ever seen any complex thing or anything for that matter just come into existance? It must have been majic or something. LOL!
Topic: Off the wall thought. (Read 241 times)
January 31, 2012, 10:09:58 PM