: On the subject of creationists, I realize that many pick and chose the evidence they wish to use and which to discard. But do realize that main stream sciences have been doing this and for quite a long time. Schools, museums, and other institutions have introduced preconceived ideas. Then scientists, archeologists, anthropologists go out into the field and collect evidence that supports these ideas. A lot of the time when evidence to the contrary of their theories is found it is destroyed or covered up. Not all scientists are like this. I have heard stories about how steles with biblical accounts have been defaced so the evidence supporting a biblical view of history could never be revealed. I have read about and seen for my self, about anthropologists who twisted and stretched bones and gave them the wrong age to fit their theories of evolution.: You also said that God could have created the universe five minuets ago with all of us having memories of the past. In this case would not the remembered past be more real than the faked past universe most Christians believe in. Creationists like to go about explaining how the apparently ancient past occurred in a relatively short amount of time. I seem to think that since light travels at the speed of light and we can see other galaxies, then the universe has to be at leased as old as it would take for the light to have traveled here. Whether this is a universal memory or an ancient created universe, I do not know. My point is that the two would be inseparable.
: I also understand that the literal five-day creation is inaccurate and not what the Tora means to say. But the geological column is also inaccurate. It fails to explain many observable land formations and the existence of complex ecosystems in "early" layers like the pre-cambium.
: Floyd: and correct me if I'm wrong, please, is that in order to prove something is not in a place, one must search the entire place. In this case, atheists would need to be able to simultaneously view every point in the universe in order to "find" an absence of God. The devout, on the other hand, would have a much easier time, in that they would not have to search the entire universe, but can stop looking as soon as they find God.
: I do not know what this means exactly, I simply do not understand it. The model you propose says that since atheists can not view the entire universe at once they can not disprove the existence of God. This is not my point. I am saying, plain and simply, that no one can ask any one to prove something does not exist.
: Let me give you a non-religious example: Say you just postulated the existence of a new particle through mathematical and physical equations based on evidence gathered at a particle accelerator. But as of yet no one has found such a particle. You insist that, in your new quantum model, this new undiscovered particle is essential to the mechanics of the entire universe. Some other scientists with their own theory come and tell you that this new particle does not exist. You show them your equations but they say that this is not good enough, they want evidence and until some one sees this particle in the accelerator and proves them wrong, it does not exist.
: Now you ask them to prove the particle does not exist. What evidence do they have that will prove the non-existence of the particle? There is no evidence to prove or disprove its existence. But you, the physicist, have something to prove to the world, you must FIND the evidence and present it to the world. The proving lies with the believer. Non-existence does not have to prove its self.
: Floyd : That's a reasonable point, but I still argue that the rules of evidence that apply in scientific pursuits do not apply to religion. Floyd has no need to demonstrate to me that God exists, nor do you. Faith, by definition, does not rely on scientific principles, so the rules of evidence are irrelevant. If "just believing" is good enough for you, fine. I take it that you consider yourself religious, so clearly "just believing" is indeed enough, and proof is unnecessary.
: First of all I am not religious. I am a Christian; for more on this you might read my message entitled "Christianity is not Religion, for DDN - Ryan Close, Drury Student, United States of America, September 20 1999 (9)." Second of all I believe that we must use reason in all of our arguing. It insults me when people say, “Because the Bible says so.” This is blind faith. My parents think that all the critical thinking I do about Christianity is a waist of time. They see the Word of God as being able to stand on its own. This I believe but I also know that someone who does not believe the Bible is infallible will not care if I say, “Because the bible says so,” then arguing from the Bible is a waste of time. When arguing we must start with something all men agree on, and that is reason.
: The truth is the observable and explainable universe that every man can see around him. Laws you might say. The law of Gravity, etc… We must start at these things because who ever you are you must believe in these things. The desk I am sitting at is solid because I can touch it and feel it. Most cultures on earth do not disagree with this view of the world. Since I believe we must start an argument with reason, what better place to start then the truth. Those things all men believe in. With time the argument can be made that will draw a rational man from the things around him and his own rationality its self to the knowledge of God and other fundamental realities. By rational man, I assert that all men and women are rational and thus capable of self-rule.
: By fundamental realities I mean the types of knowledge that come from such fields as quantum physics and metaphysics and beyond. In theory there are other world, universes that complement our own. Understanding of these would allow for a better understanding of our own universe; furthermore this understanding should be derived from simply observing our world and thinking critically.
: Many of my friends agree with me, in fact we are adamant about people that say, “Because the bible says so.” I believe that it makes Christianity look bad when Christians can’t explain in detail why their doctrines are founded on truth using only reason and logic.
: THEREFORE, science should be used to refute faith.
: FURTHERMORE, I believe that we need a type of paradigm in the world of science. Hobbes, a philosopher who took into account only scientifically observable evidence, said that we as a human race have no capacity for rational thought. He saw us as nothing more than reuses monkeys on crack. Only beings concerned with what suits us at the moment controlled by emotion and animal urges. But it is REASON that allows us to decide between right a wrong. It is the scientific world that has told us there is no soul, no spirit. According to Plato, the Greek philosopher, there is something that is a part of a living man that makes him different from a dead man. He called it the Psyche. And part of the Psyche is the part of us that decides what urges are right and what are wrong. This is reason, and from a purely scientific worldview these things do not exist, in fact we must all be animals. I hope I have shone that there are major flaws in the current scientific method. But using today's science, it would be impossible for me to ask any one to prove something does not exist.
: Floyd : Let me put it this way; If I asked you for proof of God's existence, and you couldn't provide that proof, would you stop believing? Probably not, so what was the point of trying in the first place?
: I would not deny my faith for any new scientific finding. This is because as I have said before, in science there are no absolutes; everything can be overturned sometime in the future. Faith is based on Fundamental truths, it will never change. And because it will not change and it is truth, science most definitely has a part in describing and gathering evidence for the existence of God since science deals mostly in reason and logic. I can prove in theory that God exists. If you used that theory to explain historical events as well as current day occurrences and miracles would you be forced to conclude that I have indeed proved the existence of God? No, I am not so naive to believe that just because you understand a theory in your head and see unexplainable events that you will automatic become a believer. Seeing almost is never believing.
-Ryan-
--
McSpotlight: Please, pleease, PLEASE don't add a colon (:) to the beginning of your paragraphs; it's the way the DR shows quoted text; as such, the entire post above looks like quoted text; and posts with no original content get junked by the moderators; so just type in as per normal and it'll get through fine...
Thank'ee.
