Atheism makes you smart, but don't take my word for it...

#126
#126
rjd970 said:
200,000 years of human thought and discover doesn't mean anything?
Click to expand...
it does, but it doesn't mean that we're going to answer the questions about a greater power providing a conscience or what instigated the big bang.
 
#128
#128
rjd970 said:
200,000 years of human thought and discover doesn't mean anything?
Click to expand...

science is a relatively new concept on the grand scale of human endeavors. We have made great strides in understanding through science. I think what he is saying is that perhaps science can only take us so far, it makes no more or less sense than believing science will one day explain it all.
 
#131
#131
rjd970 said:
Now your changing the game. Your question was this:



I answered it with respect to science, in which case its track record speaks volumes. Now you're saying what about other phenomenons that can't be explained by science.

The way you ask the question is not what evidence do you have...

It is what evidence would it take to convince you that your view is wrong.

You provided evidence as to why you believe in science's ability to explain all.

You did not answer the question of what evidence would it take to shake your believe system in the power of science to explain it all.




The only "leap of faith" I am taking is that based on what we have accomplished thus far, there is no reason to believe that eventually we won't get to a point where everything makes sense from a rational point of view.
Click to expand...

You don't realize the gravity of your admission in the last paragraph. It is a HUGE assumption. It is also a limiting assumption in that it precludes events/states/phenomena from existing if they don't fit your rules of discovery.

Given that you state this assumption but don't see it as an assumption I doubt you'll ever recognize it as a leap of faith underlying your belief system.
 
#132
#132
IPorange said:
There is always going to be the next level of complexity or the next level of minutia that will be just beyond current human understanding. I don't think that will ever change. In the space of unknown, some people will always see God and others will just see the next challenge.
Click to expand...

and others will see both.
 
#133
#133
rjd970 said:
200,000 years of human thought and discover doesn't mean anything?
Click to expand...

As stated before, it means we know more than we used to. It in no way is proof that eventually we can know all or that all is within the realm of human knowing
 
Last edited:
#137
#137
volinbham said:
You don't realize the gravity of your admission in the last paragraph. It is a HUGE assumption. It is also a limiting assumption in that it precludes events/states/phenomena from existing if they don't fit your rules of discovery.

Given that you state this assumption but don't see it as an assumption I doubt you'll ever recognize it as a leap of faith underlying your belief system.
Click to expand...

But it is not an assumption without basis, and that is the HUGE difference you are not understanding. I have demonstrated proof that over the history of humanity one method has done more to increase human knowledge than anything else. Time and again over history, when humans have believed that certain questions will never be answered, they have been. I fully admit this may be wrong, there may be certain events/states/phenomena that can't be explained by science...but just because certain events/states/phenomena can't be explained rationally, it doesn't mean there isn't one out there, and that assumption is based on the fact that scientists have done it before.

What is your basis for believing that certain events/states/phenomena can't fit into the purview of rational explanations?
 
#138
#138
volinbham said:
As stated before, it means we know more than we used to. It in no way is proof that eventually we can know all or that all is within the realm of human knowing
Click to expand...

Given the alternative and evidence (or lack thereof) for it's justification..ie...we will never know everything through rational thought...the assumptions underlying my view are stronger....ie...my "leap of faith" isn't as long.
 
#139
#139
rjd970 said:
But it is not an assumption without basis, and that is the HUGE difference you are not understanding. I have demonstrated proof that over the history of humanity one method has done more to increase human knowledge than anything else. Time and again over history, when humans have believed that certain questions will never be answered, they have been. I fully admit this may be wrong, there may be certain events/states/phenomena that can't be explained by science...but just because certain events/states/phenomena can't be explained rationally, it doesn't mean there isn't one out there, and that assumption is based on the fact that scientists have done it before.

What is your basis for believing that certain events/states/phenomena can't fit into the purview of rational explanations?
Click to expand...
Even if that is true, what difference does that make. Certainly doesn't make it infallible (as it has been horrendously wrong as much as it has been correct), doesn't mean that it can find all questions and doesn't mean it isn't laden with some startlingly unbelievable assumptions in generating answers, which explains the part in parentheses.

This gets to your ever changing as a positive argument. It's ever changing because it is more often wrong than right.
 
#140
#140
rjd970 said:
What is your basis for believing that certain events/states/phenomena can't fit into the purview of rational explanations?
Click to expand...

I've listed my bases on numerous occasions for why I believe in a Creator. Am I positive one exists? No. I fully admit it is a leap of faith on my part.

I'm not saying that all events/states/phenomena cannot be explained by rational explanations.

I'm allowing the possibility and arguing that to not allow that possibility is in and of itself a leap of faith - a grand assumption.

You are the one that is adamant that rational explanations can explain all. Just pointing out this major assumption underlying your view...a leap of faith to the power of rational explanations.
 
#141
#141
rjd970 said:
Given the alternative and evidence (or lack thereof) for it's justification..ie...we will never know everything through rational thought...the assumptions underlying my view are stronger....ie...my "leap of faith" isn't as long.
Click to expand...
so?

and in my view, it's enormous.
 
#142
#142
BigPapaVol said:
This gets to your ever changing as a positive argument. It's ever changing because it is more often wrong than right.
Click to expand...

Again, as opposed to what? Staying with the same wrong answer and never changing?

It's all about the reasons, not the belief....I'm going to put this on my headstone.
 
#143
#143
rjd970 said:
Given the alternative and evidence (or lack thereof) for it's justification..ie...we will never know everything through rational thought...the assumptions underlying my view are stronger....ie...my "leap of faith" isn't as long.
Click to expand...

your opinion is noted
 
#144
#144
volinbham said:
You are the one that is adamant that rational explanations can explain all. Just pointing out this major assumption underlying your view...a leap of faith to the power of rational explanations.
Click to expand...

No. I am saying that given the reasons and evidence behind my belief, I think that rational thinking will eventually get us there and history shows that just because something seems impossible now doesn't mean that it really is.

Maybe there are certain events/states/phenomena that will never be explained rationally, but I see no reason to believe that now.
 
#145
#145
rjd970 said:
Again, as opposed to what? Staying with the same wrong answer and never changing?

It's all about the reasons, not the belief....I'm going to put this on my headstone.
Click to expand...
As opposed to offering an alternative explanation every five years that shoots holes in all of the assumptions that made the other viable.

Seems to me the unchanging one has the most viability, but I guess I'm crazy that way. Have you noticed how often the stuff that is right changes? I don't recall hearing much debate about what Pythagoras taught us.
 
#147
#147
BigPapaVol said:
As opposed to offering an alternative explanation every five years that shoots holes in all of the assumptions that made the other viable.

Seems to me the unchanging one has the most viability, but I guess I'm crazy that way. Have you noticed how often the stuff that is right changes? I don't recall hearing much debate about what Pythagoras taught us.
Click to expand...

Right, because for heaven's sake, we don't want to get any smarter or continually improve. Let's stick with one explanation and call it right no matter what.
 
#148
#148
rjd970 said:
Right, because for heaven's sake, we don't want to get any smarter or continually improve. Let's stick with one explanation and call it right no matter what.
Click to expand...

You're missing the boat here. Most rational Christians will tell you science has an important place. You believe in science as the alternative to God, many Christians see science as a way to understand God and his creation. This isn't about choosing one over the other.
 
#149
#149
KB5252 said:
You're missing the boat here. Most rational Christians will tell you science has an important place. You believe in science as the alternative to God, many Christians see science as a way to understand God and his creation. This isn't about choosing one over the other.
Click to expand...
I agree that God is revealed in His creation... He says so in the Word...
 
#150
#150
rjd970 said:
Right, because for heaven's sake, we don't want to get any smarter or continually improve. Let's stick with one explanation and call it right no matter what.
Click to expand...
Has your science disproven it? You know, the one that is making us smarter and improving continually, but struggling with a 2000 year old book and debating a bunch of head in the sand idiots? That science?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top