Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Donal" wrote in message
... Jeff Morris wrote: "Donal" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith. Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite different. How? Most religions are based around a particular view of "God". I am suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain the Universe or mankind. I still don't see the difference. I contend that it is impossible to prove the existence of God, it must simply be an act of faith. That some religions require additional acts of faith is beside the point. Arguing for the existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the possibility that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist. True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be able to provide a stronger argument. In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an absolute act of faith. That isn't true. We hold many opinions that we believe to be certainties. How often do you see two people arguing about facts - when they are both convinced that they are absolutely correct? Are they both acting on an absolute act of faith? Nonsense. While its true that ill-informed people argue over "facts," that is not the same as a scientific proof. Have you ever lost a bet? Were you acting on an absolute act of faith? I don't see your point. You're claiming that presuming a conclusion as an act of faith is proper scientific method. I claim this makes you not credible. The funny thing is that your position is very much like a zealot's. You constantly tell me that I am wrong, and yet you offer no evidence to back up your position. When did I tell you that you were wrong? I've only said that your opinion is not evidence for something. For example - you are trying to tell me that I am demonstrating an absolute act of faith. The reality is that unless you offer evidence to support your view, then you are behaving as if you were saddled with absolute faith. No. You seemed to tell me that you have faith that no one can change your mind. Why should I even begin a serious discussion under those terms? It is not my intent to destroy your faith; I'm only saying that faith and science are two different domains. A cornerstone of science is having no preconceived notions as to where the evidence leads. Faith is exactly the opposite - it is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. I have explained why I think that there must be a God. I've offered a justification for my belief. People with absolute faith find it difficult to offer a logical explaination for their views. You offered your personal justification, but not scientific evidence. Your absolutly correct that people of faith cannot provide a logical explanation. I would not expect one. There is nothing wrong with this. Quite the opposite, I think it is wrong to try. If you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is justified. I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God? You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong. You're simply asserting your faith. Perhaps you should look at your own posts???? I did look. Several times you've said that you didn't think there was enough time for evolution to have created a thumb. I've asked you to provide evidence. You then get all huffy and claim I'm a zealot. The bottom line here is that your opinion, completely unsubstantiated, isn't "evidence." The opinion of thousands of biologists and tens of thousands of other scientists who have embraced evolution, has a bit more credibility than your opinion. By choosing the "thumb" as your focal point you have essentially said that the mechanism of evolution is not sufficient to have created any life at all. While the thumb is a rather interesting organ, it is not particularly complex or unique. You're attempting to invalidate one of the greatest scientific achievements of our age simply by saying, "I've considered this, and I don't think it works." Sorry, Donal. You're just wasting our time here. I've tried to offer evidence! I've even tried to introduce the accepted alternatives into the discussion. You are simply asserting that I am wrong. Evidence? did I miss something? did you reference any scholarly work? I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put forward that suggests that God must exist. I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence as a way to bolster your faith? Why do yo keep trying to turn this into a religious discussion? Why don't you offer some evidence to back up your position? I did. I offered the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. Frankly, I'm not the one discounting an entire field of science; I don't have to "prove" evolution, thousands of others have already done that. Stop acting in the manner that you (falsely) accuse me of. Now that's a real low blow! |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
2004 Melbourne-King Island Yacht Race - Results and Race Report | General | |||
Formalities for Joint Ownership Yacht in Croatia | General | |||
Wanted, kayaking clubs | UK Paddle | |||
can we get him to post here? | ASA | |||
Abandoned yacht - Bobsprit's twin brother??? | ASA |