Originally Posted by
sport_122
Yojimbo, good chime in.
Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in the stars and moon, and planets? Why? Have you ever touched them? I am assuming the answer is no. So if you have never placed your hand on them then you are in the same place as a believer. You have to believe based on the evidence presented by the accounts and the work of others. This is how we live. This is how you pic a car, a house, a college, a job, a bar, a route to get to your next destination etc etc.
In science, there is faith that our universal laws are active and have not or will not change. Science is a compilation of research. Which is why it has a margin of error. Because it is not 100% on anything. When you start an experiment its not the attempt its the belief that the experiment will yield results.
Faith is not bad. Blind faith is not scientific. but faith is ALL over science. And just be sure to understand that I am using faith as simply the belief in something that is not right in front of you.
Richard Dawkins even says that his faith is in science and that he approaches scientific study with faith because he believes that science can eventually yield answers to all of our questions concerning our universe. I don't agree with his statement, but even scientists will tell you that part of their work is based on faith. Faith in the results and study coming from earlier scientists who paved the way to current scientific horizons.
In this statement you sort of contradict yourself. Faith is a part of expectation.
One reason is that scientific experiments do not always yield a pass fail result. You miss the place where scientific experiments are not about pass fail, but they are about answering a question posed by a hypothesis and then Identifying the variable that causes that result.
If either of these two write down their info, is it still valid in 2000 years as history?
1. if this was the case, how are they validated to know the whole story. Where would their information come from? God? E.T.s? any other source is not valid because they are then in the same position as anyone who seeks to learn from provisional resources. The people of the Bible claimed their information about God came from Him. Are they validated now?
2. is exactly what the people who are in the Bible and some who are not have claimed to be doing. Why is Moses not suitable enough? His life is validated outside of writings in the Bible. But we dismiss ALL of this as evidence because some make false claims? That to me is illogical.
This a very bad statement for me. How are you qualified to assume that peoples claims are reduced to their (misguided) chemical reactions? Have you spoken to them, read their accounts, spoken to their doctors, their family, or have you experienced what they have? Especially when even before organized religion, people have been claiming these same experiences. an estimated 17 thousand+/- years of civilizations and we have ALWAYS had more people believing in things than not, yet we dismiss the belief phenomenon away even though over our history I would argue that over 99% or more of human population historically has believed in something. How is this illogical. This alone is reason enough to say that there is something more to humanity because we don't see this in any other life form on our planet.
Why do you believe Lincoln, MLK, Jesus, or anyone in history whom you have read about really existed? Even if you don't the origins of any of your evidence is going to be coming from resources that do validate history as a suitable tool. and historical claims are worthy of respect and understanding. And this goes back to an earlier point, the only way to dismiss God is to ignore certain things that we have at our disposal. How is it logical to ignore witness testimony that is validated by thousands upon thousands of eye witnesses of specific events. aren't your two valid resource listed above witnesses?
Also, the argument of emotions simply being chemical rxns is also a very illogical to me. Everything that you compute in your brain is a chemical reaction, so now do we have no grounds for anything to be real? Touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing, and your emotions are all based off of the human brain reducing them down so that you can compute them with reason and logic. I believe this is something God gave us that allows us to see him. It would be illogical to have a God create us and not give us the ability to use reason. Then i do not understand how we would be able to know him at all. and we cannot assume that our universe is the origin of reason, as our universe demonstrated that it is subjected to law even before it was created. Universal laws of physics, gravity, etc had to have logically been aroung before the universe or the Big bang would not have produced expansion.
lastly I have heard the chemical reaction statement said about morality too. If these things are chemical reactions then how are they validated. How do you validate the thing in you that says its wrong to kill, if someone else says, well the chemicals in my brain say its okay? Is that sufficient for you?
*lots of hte questions I asked are just for you. My world view answers these questions. I have tried, but I can't answer them logically without God in the equation.
Reply With Quote