To Believe or Not To Believe? (SHOW RESPECT, OR RISK A BAN) - Part 2

[moviedoors]

Why is it automatically outrageous to believe that a higher power might be at play in those instances?

Because it's "outrageous" (your word, not mine) to fill in that gap with ANY explanation that cannot be tested and repeated. Doesn't matter if it's God or little pink fairies.

 

[Human Torch]

Because it's "outrageous" (your word, not mine) to fill in that gap with ANY explanation that cannot be tested and repeated. Doesn't matter if it's God or little pink fairies.

Or scientists/theorists.

 

[moviedoors]

It's the "Unexplained Science of Gaps" theory.

You'd have a point if scientists just made **** up to fill in gaps in our knowledge, but that's specifically against the scientific method and it's not what they do.

There's no equivalency here.

 

[moviedoors]

Or scientists/theorists.

Explain to me how this is comparable AT ALL. What fields are scientists literally just making things up to fill the holes in their studies? The whole point of science is to study those gaps, not wave our hands and just go "Fill-in-the-blank did it" without corroboration.

Again, no equivalency.

 

[Human Torch]

Explain to me how this comparable AT ALL. What fields are scientists literally just making things up to fill the holes in their studies?

Again, no equivalency.

You said "Because it's "outrageous" (your word, not mine) to fill in that gap with ANY explanation that cannot be tested and repeated. Doesn't matter if it's God or little pink fairies.

Scientists can not test and repeat the Big Bang/Evolution. It's basically a theory that presupposes more than it can actually explain.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

That's blatantly and categorically wrong

 

[chaseter]

Well,I know I can answer very easily.
Yet again,this is an example of people expecting the Bible to hold their hand in it's descriptions rather than using plain old common sense.

The bible tells us that Adam lived for 930 years producing sons and daughters all that time. Where does it state that the story of Cain & Abel happened when there was only 4 people on the earth? It's a common misconception resulting from not taking all things in consideration.


You are taking the Bible as man written document. We believe it's the unerring Word of God. And I'd caution you against throwing the term "fanatic" around so freely.

The Bible doesn't state the lineage of Cain's wife. You are proposing a theory.

Fanatics can't separate truth from belief. Fact from fiction. Even the Catholic Church knows the difference between a parable or a teaching from the word of God. All these pop up shop Christian churches everywhere interpret everything differently, which is dangerous. A preacher can preach his own interpretation, further muddying the Biblical text. It's like the game, telephone.

 

[craigdbfan]

Yes and no in regards to Human Torch's post. Theoretically a ton of this stuff checks out. If anything theoretical science has shown me that pretty much anything is more or less possible (given certain perimeters). Check out some stuff in regards to the multiverse/meta-universe.

The primordial universe theories use branes as part of the creation of the "big bang". Branes are part of string theory which uses theoretical science in the form of quantum physics.

A ton of it is purely backed up by mathematical rigor with little to no possible way of using experimental science.

When it comes to creation and existence in general I feel theoretical science gives an incredibly surreal and if true, awesome view of the different avenues and planes of "existing" and creation.

 

[Warhammer]

String theory is awesome.

 

[Human Torch]

The Bible doesn't state the lineage of Cain's wife. You are proposing a theory.

And again you are not taking the simplest,common sense explanation. Within the 930 year life of Adam, there was plenty of time for whole villages to be populated. The focus in the story is on the first murder, not giving a contextual timeline of the event.

You simply are not reading the bible as it's meant to be read. But a lot of people seem to get hung up on not getting everything spelled out for them. The Bible expects you to use your brain a little bit.

 

[chaseter]

You have proposed a theory. Do you not see the irony?

 

[Spock]

I can't prove an invisible monster is not sitting next to me. Therefore the monster must exist. Biblical God logic

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

And again you are not taking the simplest,common sense explanation. Within the 930 year life of Adam, there was plenty of time for whole villages to be populated. The focus in the story is on the first murder, not giving a contextual timeline of the event.

You simply are not reading the bible as it's meant to be read. But a lot of people seem to get hung up on not getting everything spelled out for them. The Bible expects you to use your brain a little bit.

Haha I like how you said he is not using the simplest, common sense explanation and follow that up by claiming Adam was 930 years old. Wow

 

[ShadowBoxer]

I can't prove an invisible monster is not sitting next to me. Therefore the monster must exist. Biblical God logic

So when science doesn't have an explanation for certain occurrences, We are suppose to wait around X amount of months/ years until scientist can come up with another THEORY that MAY or MAY NOT be true about said occurrence. But it definitely can't be a higher power involved with anything like that. It HAS to be a scientific explanation and it HAS to have a reason WE can understand and analyze. Anything less is fairy tales created by unintelligent religious folk. Non religious folk logic.

 

[Marvolo]

Well to each their own, but as for me personally I dont immediately jump to "God" as the anwswer for things science cant yet explain. There just isnt any reason to jump to conclusions like that. I dont need God to be the X in every single unsolved equation. And Im someone who does believe in God. Just not the God of gaps. We live in a natural universe that operates under natural machinations and laws. If something in our natural universe has an explanation its far more likely that the explanation is a purely natural one and not supernatural one. Accepting this in no way weakens my faith.

 

[Warhammer]

Well to each their own, but as for me personally I dont immediately jump to "God" as the anwswer for things science cant yet explain. There just isnt any reason to jump to conclusions like that. I dont need God to be the X in every single unsolved equation. And Im someone who does believe in God. Just not the God of gaps. We live in a natural universe that operates under natural machinations and laws. If something in our natural universe has an explanation its far more likely that the explanation is a purely natural one and not supernatural one. Accepting this in no way weakens my faith.

I agree and share the same opinion.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Well to each their own, but as for me personally I dont immediately jump to "God" as the anwswer for things science cant yet explain. There just isnt any reason to jump to conclusions like that. I dont need God to be the X in every single unsolved equation. And Im someone who does believe in God. Just not the God of gaps. We live in a natural universe that operates under natural machinations and laws. If something in our natural universe has an explanation its far more likely that the explanation is a purely natural one and not supernatural one. Accepting this in no way weakens my faith.

I am not saying we should jump to the God conclusion for everything. Sometimes there is definitely a scientific reason behind some occurrences. But like I said that's not always the case for every single occurrence that happens in life or the universe at large. But non religious folk claim that there is a scientific reason/ explaination for EVERY occurrence. To them the idea of a a higher power having any sort of influence is fairy tales, it's scientific reasoning or nothing at all. That's what I was referring to. Like I mentioned many times before, I accept many of the scientific discoveries but I am not one to say because this theory says this, I no longer accept the possibility of a higher being.

 

[moviedoors]

So when science doesn't have an explanation for certain occurrences, We are suppose to wait around X amount of months/ years until scientist can come up with another THEORY that MAY or MAY NOT be true about said occurrence.

Yes.

 

[Human Torch]

I am not saying we should jump to the God conclusion for everything. Sometimes there is definitely a scientific reason behind some occurrences. But like I said that's not always the case for every single occurrence that happens in life or the universe at large. But non religious folk claim that there is a scientific reason/ explaination for EVERY occurrence. To them the idea of a a higher power having any sort of influence is fairy tales, it's scientific reasoning or nothing at all. That's what I was referring to. Like I mentioned many times before, I accept many of the scientific discoveries but I am not one to say because this theory says this, I no longer accept the possibility of a higher being.

Yes. It's basically like I said. I don't feel the need have an iron clad scientific reason for every single event in creation. I suppose if you are an unbeliever, you have a dire need for such explanations,and that's fine. But you are never going to know for a certainty the answer to EVERY SINGLE QUESTION regarding creation. It's impossible. It's theory. It's mankind's arrogance that leads him to believe he's a better expert in the ways of life/creation/ the cosmos than God.

 

[KevanG]

Yes. It's basically like I said. I don't feel the need have an iron clad scientific reason for every single event in creation. I suppose if you are an unbeliever, you have a dire need for such explanations,and that's fine. But you are never going to know for a certainty the answer to EVERY SINGLE QUESTION regarding creation. It's impossible. It's theory. It's mankind's arrogance that leads him to believe he's a better expert in the ways of life/creation/ the cosmos than God.

And there's the problem. People who want answers to questions aren't demanding to see the face of god or deny him outright, we're just curious. That's why we bothered to change anything thousands of years ago. We are a curious species that like to know things. How does X work? Where did Y come from? Why doesn't Z make sense compared to what we know now?

If we all just said 'It's impossible to know everything. **** it, back to the trees" then we'd be idiots.

It doesn't matter that we won't know everything and it's not arrogant of us to want to know more, it's our nature. Telling us that we're in the wrong for wanting to know more about ourselves, the universe and everything is incredibly naive and hurtful to the species to try and perpetuate that line of thinking.

Why is it bad to try to understand things we don't know? Why is it arrogant to attempt to find out what we came from and were it happened? How exactly is it wrong to try to find out what's going on in the universe if we just figure it out for ourselves as opposed to waiting for God to reveal it to us, should he ever do so? I'd like you to explain this Torch.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Yes. It's basically like I said. I don't feel the need have an iron clad scientific reason for every single event in creation. I suppose if you are an unbeliever, you have a dire need for such explanations,and that's fine. But you are never going to know for a certainty the answer to EVERY SINGLE QUESTION regarding creation. It's impossible. It's theory. It's mankind's arrogance that leads him to believe he's a better expert in the ways of life/creation/ the cosmos than God.

Agreed. I found it ironic that the non religious say that since Christians can't give an explanation as to why certain people are seemingly healed by diseases like cancer and others aren't. Or Why God didn't prevent these people from being killed by this drunk driver etc. Like science our understanding of God and his methods are an on going process. But the non religious will just say God isn't real or he is flawed because there isn't an explanation. But when there are gaps in knowledge that can't currently be explained by science, I don't seem them trying to discredit the many theories out there. They are just like, give scientist time to figure it out. But the religious need an explanation right then and there or what they believe is illogical. And again, I am not saying every coccurrence that can't be explained such be automatically considered a God issue, but simply it people should be open to all possibilities.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Also like I mentioned yesterday. The evolution theory doesn't even answer the question on how life arose. It just focuses on how life evolved once it arose. Even evolutionists acknowledge that flaw. Now there could be another scientific explanation we have yet to discover. But is it' so absurd to think that there is a possibility that a higher power may have had some influence there?

 

[Human Torch]

And there's the problem. People who want answers to questions aren't demanding to see the face of god or deny him outright, we're just curious. That's why we bothered to change anything thousands of years ago. We are a curious species that like to know things. How does X work? Where did Y come from? Why doesn't Z make sense compared to what we know now?

If we all just said 'It's impossible to know everything. **** it, back to the trees" then we'd be idiots.

It doesn't matter that we won't know everything and it's not arrogant of us to want to know more, it's our nature. Telling us that we're in the wrong for wanting to know more about ourselves, the universe and everything is incredibly naive and hurtful to the species to try and perpetuate that line of thinking.

Why is it bad to try to understand things we don't know? Why is it arrogant to attempt to find out what we came from and were it happened? How exactly is it wrong to try to find out what's going on in the universe if we just figure it out for ourselves as opposed to waiting for God to reveal it to us, should he ever do so? I'd like you to explain this Torch.

After reading what I wrote before,I can understand your reply. But I think I should clarify what I was really trying to say.

Obviously,there is nothing wrong with trying to understand the mysteries of creation or the general science of the world and how it works. I've always said that Christianity isn't a blind faith and that we should embrace science in as much as we can see all the aspects of the question. My problem however,is the scientific community generally,by and large, doesn't even want to entertain the possibilities of creationism or intelligent design. And I think there is great human arrogance in that. In saying "Well we know a higher power couldn't enter the equation. Let's take that right off the table and postulate from there."

I always question why there is such resistance to teaching both sides of the theory of creation in schools. Why can't we present both arguments and let the students decide for themselves? If it's such a cut and dried case for evolution, why should atheists fear having both sides theories clearly represented?

 

[jerkhero]

Also like I mentioned yesterday. The evolution theory doesn't even answer the question on how life arose. It just focuses on how life evolved once it arose. Even evolutionists acknowledge that flaw.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but what about chemical evolution? Inorganic compounds forming organic compounds, leading to amino acids, RNA etc. needed for life, which eventually leads to a simple version of cell. It has even been experimented that early conditions of earth can produce organic compounds from simpler inorganic ones. I got this from a simple biology summary book I have, so it sounds weird that evolutionists don't focus at all on how life started.

 

[MrsKent26]

Well to each their own, but as for me personally I dont immediately jump to "God" as the anwswer for things science cant yet explain. There just isnt any reason to jump to conclusions like that. I dont need God to be the X in every single unsolved equation. And Im someone who does believe in God. Just not the God of gaps. We live in a natural universe that operates under natural machinations and laws. If something in our natural universe has an explanation its far more likely that the explanation is a purely natural one and not supernatural one. Accepting this in no way weakens my faith.

That's pretty much how I see it (except that I'm not a believer). IMO, a gap in knowledge simply means we haven't discovered the natural or scientific explanation for that gap. Some things are simply difficult to measure. I don't see the need to make up an explanation for unknown things when the truth can't be, or has yet to be, discovered. I'm perfectly comfortable saying "I don't know the answer" or "humankind doesn't know the answer yet," but I understand why some people might be uncomfortable with the unknown.