The jury is still out on this one. If the universe had a beginning, what was there before it? If the universe was created, where did the creater reside before the creation? It's one of those issues that we cannot, at our present level of science and technology, discern.
So what we have are two efforts to explain what we experience: Science and religion. Science has lmited itself to only those phenomena we as human beings can observe or infer from instruments and the data they produce. Religion relies upon faith as an explanation for what we cannot physically measure. Neither is a dishonest effort to understand our reality. But to pit them against each other is an attempt to create a false dichotomy. Science acknowledges that it cannot understand the supernatural, and religious adherents wisely do not challenge physical reality. It's when those who claim to be speaking for religion deny physical realty that the line dividing the two epistomologies is crossed.
And that takes me back to my original question: Do you have any hard, scientific evidence of "eternal life?" That the answer, which seems to be anathema on this post, is no should not be regarded as an attack upon religion, but merely acknowledgement that science has produced no data to the contrary.
No, it's not. That is the theory of evolution. It does demand a leap of faith, and that is why ID's point fingers right back at EVO's, exposing their religion. If the universe had a beginning, what was there before it? If the universe was created, where did the creator reside before the creation?
God explains his existence to Abraham. Bear in mind however, the bible is NOT a science journal. With that in mind, it's quite amazing that His explanation to Abraham 5000-6000 years ago is still worthy of thought today. He explains- I AM. He is multidimensional, and that is something we just cannot understand yet. There IS some theories floating around on this very subject however.
It's one of those issues that we cannot, at our present level of science and technology, discern.
As said above, I agree. However, I notice many people who outright reject the possibility of ID have never actually read the bible. I mean faithfully studied it, as they would a thesis submitted to a journal of science. A second observation is ID does not necessarily mean you have to believe this creator was the God of the bible.
Religion relies upon faith as an explanation for what we cannot physically measure.
Ahh. Religion isn't trying to replace science. This is a misconception among EVO's. Granted, there are some nuts in the crowd. As early as 1253 or there abouts, Fathers of the Church spoke on this very subject. The ruleing was, the Church is based on truth, and science was/is work done to discover truth. Since the Church is based on the truth of the Lord, then there is nothing to fear about truth discovered through science, because all that can be discovered is the truth of God.
I'd like to finnish this, but I have to go, work calls. My concern, and belief is that science shouldn't be hindered by one belief or another. I agree with St. Augustine, that the truth leads us to a greater understanding of GOD. God is truth, and science is discovery of truth. Any true scientist shouldn't be afraid of dicovering God, and if it works the other way, so be it. If you would like to continue this, let me know. nice talking with you.
We only have factual physical evidence, an event witnessed by many, decribed by God himself in vivid detail 964 years before the event occured. There can be no doubt these things did occur, it's just to recent in history to claim otherwise. Wrtten and sealed. My Son was killed recently. He came and told me he would be ok. All was well. He was dusty and tattered looking, but smiling and happy. That was the night before they told me he was killed in action that day.
That may not be hard evidence to you. It sure become hard evidence to me.
That's like asking with wonderment, where did a house builder live, before he built a house. Of course, the creator is not part of the creation.