Religious debate (split from main board)

#502
#502
vollygirl said:
Because one group chooses to have faith and believe and the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

If I told you that Santa Claus was real and that if you don't believe me you just don't have faith, what would you think of me? Because that is how an atheist feels when a believer talks about faith.
 
#503
#503
gsvol said:
Admit the fact of the matter, you are afraid to open your own mind and make a spiritual experiment by praying a little prayer yourself and see what happens.

I could suggest some simple prayers but why not make up your own?

If you are afraid to make such an experiment, why ignore and hide that fact from your own self??

You speak of the truth of science but isn't scientific experimentation the root of all scientific discovery??

Why would not that be the same in the realm of the spiritual??

You may say that science trumps all things spiritual but then science in no way approaches the point that it can even slightly prove the non-existance of the spiritual realm.

Do we agree on that much??
Click to expand...

1. That would be testing God, which is a sin.

2. You are making an assumption I have never prayed before, or that I reached my current position on these matters without a struggling against them due to my religious upbringing.

What if I told you I DID give your little prayer idea a whirl yesterday evening, and here I am still? Would you have the audacity to call me a liar, and prove beyond any doubt in my mind that the religious stuff is all hooey?

As far as what science can and can't prove in regards to the spiritual, science works off of the null-hypothesis. In this case, it would have to try and prove there is no god, and ultimately reject that null, to prove that there IS a god. So far, there has been no reason to reject that null hypothesis. In fact, far from it.
 
#505
#505
IPorange said:
1. That would be testing God, which is a sin.

2. You are making an assumption I have never prayed before, or that I reached my current position on these matters without a struggling against them due to my religious upbringing.

What if I told you I DID give your little prayer idea a whirl yesterday evening, and here I am still? Would you have the audacity to call me a liar, and prove beyond any doubt in my mind that the religious stuff is all hooey?

As far as what science can and can't prove in regards to the spiritual, science works off of the null-hypothesis. In this case, it would have to try and prove there is no god, and ultimately reject that null, to prove that there IS a god. So far, there has been no reason to reject that null hypothesis. In fact, far from it.
Click to expand...

The true believer would say God is telling you either "no" or "wait". Which means that they're not wrong, you just have to read the evidence that God isn't real as evidence that he is real... somehow...

It all comes down to faith I think. When you're convinced that you're right it's easy to shrug off evidence that you're wrong.
 
#506
#506
Snakes on a Wii said:
If I told you that Santa Claus was real and that if you don't believe me you just don't have faith, what would you think of me? Because that is how an atheist feels when a believer talks about faith.
Click to expand...
I would think you are right, I don't have faith in Santa. You choose to believe he's real, that's you. I'm not asking you to believe in God or have faith. I'm telling you I do. You have to make your own choice. But it doesn't affect mine.
 
#507
#507
Snakes on a Wii said:
If I told you that Santa Claus was real and that if you don't believe me you just don't have faith, what would you think of me? Because that is how an atheist feels when a believer talks about faith.
Click to expand...
Not really the same comparison.
 
Last edited:
#508
#508
Snakes on a Wii said:
Did you even read my post? Natural selection is not a preordained plan, yet it is the opposite of accident. It is a rule, a law of nature.
Click to expand...

That is true if you believe in mutations, and not intelligent design. There are 2 different ways to look at Natural selection, or adaptation.
 
#510
#510
BeecherVol said:
That is true if you believe in mutations, and not intelligent design. There are 2 different ways to look at Natural selection, or adaptation.
Click to expand...

How does intelligent design account for mistakes, dead ends, and, now that you mention it, mutations?
 
#512
#512
tvolsfan said:
Why does it have to? I don't see why it evolution couldn't be set off by a creator.
Click to expand...

Then it wouldn't be "intelligent" design, but rather a deist watch-maker type phenomenon, and you would have no problem with evolutionary theory as-is.
 
#514
#514
BeecherVol said:
That is true if you believe in mutations, and not intelligent design. There are 2 different ways to look at Natural selection, or adaptation.
Click to expand...

There's nothing about mutations to believe in. They're real, they're there. I can point them out to you if you'd like. Chances are you have a few yourself, they're tiny and don't do anything.
 
#515
#515
IPorange said:
Then it wouldn't be "intelligent" design, but rather a deist watch-maker type phenomenon, and you would have no problem with evolutionary theory as-is.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. I'm not sure why intelligent design has to result in an unchanging world.
 
#516
#516
tvolsfan said:
Why does it have to? I don't see why it evolution couldn't be set off by a creator.
Click to expand...

There's no reason why it couldn't but all the atheists' point is that the creator is unnecessary. There is no point from the "beginning" of the universe until now that ever required the intervention of a Creator. In other words, miracles aren't required to explain the beautiful complexity of nature.
 
#517
#517
BeecherVol said:
Explain what you mean by mistakes, or dead ends.

If you are talking about roads, take that up the county.:)
Click to expand...

See, I made a bunch of examples about this in my post on evolution. If you read it these questions would be answered.

But since you probably won't here's one to think about:

The human head is too big. The brain has to fold itself to fit inside the skull because if the skull was any bigger it would be impossible to give birth. It's tough enough already. This is evidence against an intelligent designer, since such a designer would have made the brain more efficient and the skull smaller, or the birth canal wider.
 
#518
#518
Snakes on a Wii said:
There's no reason why it couldn't but all the atheists' point is that the creator is unnecessary. There is no point from the "beginning" of the universe until now that ever required the intervention of a Creator. In other words, miracles aren't required to explain the beautiful complexity of nature.
Click to expand...
How did it all start though? How did the Big Bang start, and if nothing was there, how was there a bang? I can't prove to you there is a God, but there are definitely things that science doesn't answer.
 
#519
#519
Snakes on a Wii said:
See, I made a bunch of examples about this in my post on evolution. If you read it these questions would be answered.

But since you probably won't here's one to think about:

The human head is too big. The brain has to fold itself to fit inside the skull because if the skull was any bigger it would be impossible to give birth. It's tough enough already. This is evidence against an intelligent designer, since such a designer would have made the brain more efficient and the skull smaller, or the birth canal wider.
Click to expand...
Surely evolution would take care of such a problem.
 
#521
#521
tvolsfan said:
Surely evolution would take care of such a problem.
Click to expand...

It already did. That's why the brain has folds on it. As it is the birth canal has already widened, yet there's a certain limit with the human frame.

One common misconception about evolution is that it produces perfect results. That's not necessarily true; it produces minimally decent results. It's about being better than all the other competitors, not being perfect. But a designer has no excuse, unless he or she is just lazy...
 
#522
#522
Snakes on a Wii said:
The only difference is one is recognized by the majority of the population to be an absurd children's tale, and the other is still believed by many adults, despite requiring a similar amount of faith.
Click to expand...
Not really. I'm pretty sure you could look up the origins for Santa very quickly. You could probably find out who was involved in starting the custom and you could probably figure out everything about the image of Santa itself. It isn't nearly that easy with God. You can try, and assume it's not real, but you'd have a hard time finding evidence of someone creating the idea of God.
 
#523
#523
tvolsfan said:
Surely evolution would take care of such a problem.
Click to expand...

I don't think you get evolution. The fossil record of hominids show exactly how we arrived at the situation, and to an extent why.

Evolution is not always about what's "best" in an overall design standpoint, but rather what qualities are being passed down. The smarter a hominid was, the more likely it would successfully survive to reproduce.

It isn't practical for an elk to have massive antlers. But they are that way because elk fight for the right to have access to mates, and the ones best equipped to fight are the ones who pass on their genes.
 
#524
#524
Snakes on a Wii said:
It already did. That's why the brain has folds on it. As it is the birth canal has already widened, yet there's a certain limit with the human frame.

One common misconception about evolution is that it produces perfect results. That's not necessarily true; it produces minimally decent results. It's about being better than all the other competitors, not being perfect. But a designer has no excuse, unless he or she is just lazy...
Click to expand...
Not really. If you believe a creator set off evolution, then why would it be perfect as soon as the first humans developed?
 
#525
#525
IPorange said:
I don't think you get evolution. The fossil record of hominids show exactly how we arrived at the situation, and to an extent why.
Click to expand...
I get it, I promise. I've made it clear I think they co-exist. I'm just wondering why people think a creator has to create a static, unchanging world.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top