Originally posted by whodey Where did the water go? Who cares? After all, how did the boat that size get all the way to the top of a mountain that size? That is the question.
You see, there will ALWAYS be unknowns and questions. The only thing that matters are your interpretations of events to be able to peice the puzzle together the right way.
…You see, there will ALWAYS be unknowns and questions..…
Correct -and there will now also be ALWAYS be many knowns (cannot seem to find that word in the dictionary) and answered questions thanks to science.
Originally posted by whodey Without evidence, my faith would be baseless and I have evidences to back my beliefs. However, with irrefutable evidence, my faith would be suspect because it is my belief that an immaterial God created a material universe. Therefore, how does one come up with material evidence for an immaterial God that is irrefutable?
…Without evidence, my faith would be baseless and I have evidences to back my beliefs...…
I thought “faith” does not require evidence? -else it wouldn't be "faith"?
…However, with irrefutable evidence, my faith would be suspect because it is my belief that an immaterial God created a material universe. Therefore, how does one come up with material evidence for an immaterial God that is irrefutable?.…
The answer to that question is that it is impossible -unless, of course, a “god” exists but you are wrong about this “god” being totally immaterial!
I get the impression from what you say here that you first came to believe that there is a god and only THEN looked for evidence for the existence of such a think -and not the other way around. In strict scientific method, you don’t form the hypothesis BEFORE looking at the data; -you FIRST look at the data and THEN you make a hypothesis based, as far as possible, purely on that data. You then may collect more data to try and subsequently confirm or refute that hypothesis. I believe that this is the most rational way of forming beliefs and not just ‘scientific beliefs’ but also the kind of beliefs one forms in his daily life using the data from your own senses (mainly sight and hearing).
Originally posted by whodey Ok, lets take a real life scenerio that seems miraculous. Namely, the exodus of the Jews from Eygept. Recently, archeaology digs have more or less confirmed the existence of slave Jews in Eygept with exodus stories to go with it. So it begs the question how they escaped? At first, those who did not believe the Bible story disputed such events, however, no ...[text shortened]... interpretations are guided by ones beliefs as to how much credence one gives the Biblical story.
…It is evidence subject to interpretations and such interpretations are guided by ones BELIEFS as to how much credence one gives the Biblical story.… (my emphasis)
Is what you mean by “BELIEFS” is philosophical beliefs such as whether or not there is a god etc as opposed to the more evidence-based beliefs such as the validity of carbon-dating etc? if so, then a rational persons interpretation of scientific data is not “guided by his BELIEFS” and I am certainly not “guided by my BELIEFS” (if that is what you mean by “BELIEFS” ) -I would just look at the evidence and apply my best logic.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton [
I thought “faith” does not require evidence? -else it wouldn't be "faith"?
I does not require faith, however, to base your taith in something for no reason is somewhat fool hearty in my view. For example, the disciple Thomas told Christ that he would not believe until he was able to see and touch his wounds. He is often critisized for this apparent lack of faith, however, Christ NEVER rebuked him for doing so and allowed him to tuuch and see his wounds. Of course, this is where we get the term, "Doubting Thomas".
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton [b][b]…Without evidence, my faith would be baseless and I have The answer to that question is that it is impossible -unless, of course, a “god” exists but you are wrong about this “god” being totally immaterial!
You are correct only in the sense that Christ came down as God in the flesh. Other than that, what you are confronted with is an immaterial God creating and interacting with the material world. All we can then do is measure and study the material world we live in. For example, we see matter but do not know how it came about. We see living organisms but cannot say for sure how they came to be living etc.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton [I get the impression from what you say here that you first came to believe that there is a god and only THEN looked for evidence for the existence of such a think -and not the other way around.
Yes and no. My evidence was based upon lives that I had seen change once they came to Christ. In addition, I was confronted with the truth in Christ's teachings which drew me in. You see, these are evidences but not proof of the immaterial interacting with the material world.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton . In strict scientific method, you don’t form the hypothesis BEFORE looking at the data; -you FIRST look at the data and THEN you make a hypothesis based, as far as possible, purely on that data. You then may collect more data to try and subsequently confirm or refute that hypothesis. I believe that this is the most rational way of forming beliefs and n ...[text shortened]... iefs one forms in his daily life using the data from your own senses (mainly sight and hearing).[/b]
You are correct. Science has formulated a process to identify and measure phenomenon in the material world. However, we cannot then use such a method to measure the immaterial world now can we? What you are trying to do here is akin to using mathmatics to try and evaluate philosophy.
Originally posted by whodey You are correct only in the sense that Christ came down as God in the flesh. Other than that, what you are confronted with is an immaterial God creating and interacting with the material world. All we can then do is measure and study the material world we live in. For example, we see matter but do not know how it came about. We see living organisms but cannot say for sure how they came to be living etc.
…For example, we see matter but do not know how it came about....…
That is no scientific mystery -the matter was generated from the energy from the big-bang according to E=MC^2. However, why the big-bang produced all that energy that produced that matter is currently a scientific mystery (as far as I am aware).
…We see living organisms but cannot say for sure how they came to be living etc..…
Only if you reject scientific facts -evolution is the answer.
Originally posted by whodey Yes and no. My evidence was based upon lives that I had seen change once they came to Christ. In addition, I was confronted with the truth in Christ's teachings which drew me in. You see, these are evidences but not proof of the immaterial interacting with the material world.
…My evidence was based upon lives that I had seen change once they came to Christ.....…
In what way can observations of the physiological effect of people coming to believe in a religion be “evidence” (even circumstantial evidence) that there is a god?
Originally posted by whodey You are correct. Science has formulated a process to identify and measure phenomenon in the material world. However, we cannot then use such a method to measure the immaterial world now can we? What you are trying to do here is akin to using mathmatics to try and evaluate philosophy.
…You are correct. Science has formulated a process to identify and measure phenomenon in the material world. However, we cannot then use such a method to measure the immaterial world now can we? ...…
Of course not. But I have no rational reason to believe there is such an immaterial world to measure.
…What you are trying to do here is akin to using mathematics to try and evaluate philosophy..…
That is no scientific mystery -the matter was generated from the energy from the big-bang according to E=MC^2. However, why the big-bang produced all that energy that produced that matter is currently a scientific mystery (as far as I am aware).
Actually, all matter is energy in some form or another. I don't think anyone here would dispute this fact.
Only if you reject scientific facts -evolution is the answer.[/b]
Actually, I think what you mean is that abiogenesis is the answer, not evolution. Evolution is merely the study of the progression of life forms already in existence, therefore, I take no issue with evolution.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton [b]…My evidence was based upon lives that I had seen change once they came to Christ.....…
In what way can observations of the physiological effect of people coming to believe in a religion be “evidence” (even circumstantial evidence) that there is a god?[/b]
Physiological effects are not what I am referring to, rather, I was referring to changes in peoples hearts and attitudes etc.
Which I referred to in the other thread. Mathematics can be used to prove certain types of hypotheses in certain types of philosophy.[/b]
Ok, so certain types of philosophy, but what of all philosophy? Also, can one use philosophy to study mathematics? I think you see my point here even or at least I hope you do.
Originally posted by whodey Ok, so certain types of philosophy, but what of all philosophy? Also, can one use philosophy to study mathematics? I think you see my point here even or at least I hope you do.
…can one use philosophy to study mathematics?...…
Correct -it is called mathematical philosophy -although you might then insist that that isn’t philosophy in which case you enter the philosophical argument of what is “philosophy” which has no objective answer because it just depends on what you mean by the word.
Round earth evolutionists
27 Aug '08 15:581 edit
Back to Top