News1 min ago
God
62 Answers
I was interested to read Styleys post referring to heaven and what happens there.....
Can anyone convince me that there IS a god - this is a serious question and not meant in any derogatory way, so please dont offend anyone.
Thanks
A
Can anyone convince me that there IS a god - this is a serious question and not meant in any derogatory way, so please dont offend anyone.
Thanks
A
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by angeldraws. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"It doesn't take much effort on Google's site or my own library to see that your acceptance is based on your desire to fulfil your worldview as it is any constancy."
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm reasonably certain my entire psychological make up isn't on Google or in your library, so am unsure how you think you can possibly know this. Besides which, that rather supposes that worldview precedes evidence, rather than proceeds from it. Believe me, I'm open to changing my mind, but I'm not going to change my mind on the basis of woo woo evidence.
"Since [...] Darwin first proposed [...] descent of species from common ancestors, not one segment hasn't been denied, argued over and hotly debated and in many cases refuted or modified... [...] from within the scientific community. You see this as falsifiability, I see it as one book is titled, 'A Theory in Chaos'."
I do see it as falsifiability because that's the scientific method. It's stated up front and on the tin. Again, this happens with other theories; germ theory, gravity etc.
"Each example that you provide can easily be refuted by radically alternate explanations, no?"
I suspect the alternate explanations are considerably less elegant and uneconomical, Mr Occam, and suffer from a lack of evidence, but you would have to make them to know who was right, and in any case, that's not the point being made.
If evolution is wrong, the fact that it so consistently provides coherent explanations for what we observe, to the extent that we can use it to discover medical cures or make predictions that turn out to be supported by evidence, is extremely surprising, no? Once or twice, sure. Consistently, across such a wide range of disciplines..?
How many diseases have been cured by making reference to Creationism or ID?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I'm reasonably certain my entire psychological make up isn't on Google or in your library, so am unsure how you think you can possibly know this. Besides which, that rather supposes that worldview precedes evidence, rather than proceeds from it. Believe me, I'm open to changing my mind, but I'm not going to change my mind on the basis of woo woo evidence.
"Since [...] Darwin first proposed [...] descent of species from common ancestors, not one segment hasn't been denied, argued over and hotly debated and in many cases refuted or modified... [...] from within the scientific community. You see this as falsifiability, I see it as one book is titled, 'A Theory in Chaos'."
I do see it as falsifiability because that's the scientific method. It's stated up front and on the tin. Again, this happens with other theories; germ theory, gravity etc.
"Each example that you provide can easily be refuted by radically alternate explanations, no?"
I suspect the alternate explanations are considerably less elegant and uneconomical, Mr Occam, and suffer from a lack of evidence, but you would have to make them to know who was right, and in any case, that's not the point being made.
If evolution is wrong, the fact that it so consistently provides coherent explanations for what we observe, to the extent that we can use it to discover medical cures or make predictions that turn out to be supported by evidence, is extremely surprising, no? Once or twice, sure. Consistently, across such a wide range of disciplines..?
How many diseases have been cured by making reference to Creationism or ID?
"Again, defering to intellectual honesty, I have just as much "certainty" concerning the nature of God, the historicity of Jesus and the changes in my life (and others) based on investigation of the evidence, as you do in your "beliefs"."
"Having said that, I do believe that there is a middle course that doesn't rely on "God of the Gaps", scientific dishonesty or refutation of the ancient age of the world and universe. I think you may be relying on "Young Earth" creationist's literature and I disagree with their position at least as strongly as you do. But, part of their position is based on fear... fear that, given enough time, evolution might be a viable theory."
Evolution *is* a viable theory, in much the same way that just because there's a few fringe loonies in a 'Flat Earth Society', it doesn't change the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid. I agree that it's fear at the heart of the rejection, however.
"Many on my ilk, however, can reasonably show that infinite time would not produce the results we see today."
I rather suspect this won�t be uncontroversial, so I�m not sure how reasonable 'reasonable' means.
"Having said that, I do believe that there is a middle course that doesn't rely on "God of the Gaps", scientific dishonesty or refutation of the ancient age of the world and universe. I think you may be relying on "Young Earth" creationist's literature and I disagree with their position at least as strongly as you do. But, part of their position is based on fear... fear that, given enough time, evolution might be a viable theory."
Evolution *is* a viable theory, in much the same way that just because there's a few fringe loonies in a 'Flat Earth Society', it doesn't change the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid. I agree that it's fear at the heart of the rejection, however.
"Many on my ilk, however, can reasonably show that infinite time would not produce the results we see today."
I rather suspect this won�t be uncontroversial, so I�m not sure how reasonable 'reasonable' means.
