Posted on 05/21/2007 12:32:22 AM PDT by goldstategop
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
in the end it rests on the proposition we can confidently know all of reality and predict it down to the movement of an unseen atom
No it doesn't. We are allowed to simply say "I don't know." We don't have to have an answer, and we don't have to know that there is someone (deity of your choice) who does have all the answers. We're comfortable not having all the answers. Science itself is tentative.
“There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.”
bookmark
There was a time when an atheist’s testimony was inadmissable in an American courtroom.
After all, to whom would he give his oath or affirm that his testimony is true? (Quakers and Mennonites don’t take oaths, and are allowed to “affirm” their testimony under the watchful eyes of God their Father).
As for the antropogenic nature of the universe, this was right out of Satan’s promise to the disobedient Eve that “ye will be as Gods, knowing for yourselves good and evil.”
Neat essay. Thanks for posting it. Interesting point he made — most scientists have no special expertise in theology, so why should we rely on their opinions about God?
When you find an athiest scientist who claims that science conclusively “proves” there is not G-d, ask them: What exactly caused the Big Bang? Where did all the material for the universe come from in the first place? I am not one who takes the Bible literally, but (if anything) scientific theories about creation leave plenty of room to support the existence of G-d.
Also, whenever a scientist claims to have proven something remember this: You can prove anything if you make enough simplifying assumptions.
bump for later...
To believe in God, seems the better road than not.
One may not believe in God and simply turn to dust at the end of life. However, if God speaks to us, and we reject Him, then we could be condemned to an eternity of chaos.
We don’t know everything and even human nature itself is the greatest of all mysteries. How then can we say there is a God?
If we cannot know everything about what we do see, how can one claim to know anything about what we cannot see?
Hank
Thanks.
Great article by a genuine Christian.
1. The religious have always "targeted" younger generations. They have no just complaint if atheists do the same.
2. The atheists are not alone in seeing science and religion as opposed. To borrow a phrase from William F. Buckley, religion (specifically Christianity) has repeatedly stood athwart the path of science yelling "Stop!".
3. When the atheist declares that religion is false, the believer must agree with respect to every religion but one. Would Mr. Norris care to estimate how many religions exist, have existed, or will exist, of which only one - at most one - can be true?
4. While science has made a persuasive case that the past of the universe is finite, that case also shows that the age of the universe is vastly greater than the theologians ever conceived. The claim that the latter have been proved right is ludicrous.
We don’t know everything and even human nature itself is the greatest of all mysteries. How then can we say there is no God?
Neat essay. Thanks for posting it. Interesting point he made — most scientists have no special expertise in theology, so why should we rely on their opinions about God?
___________
Which, of course, begs the question, why would we consider the opinions of religious people who have no special expertise in things scientific?
Make it illegal again and the Church will only grow stronger.
...a number of your points are debatable...
It may be semantics, but I think ‘targeting’ for instruction of youth in moral and ethical behaviours is off kilter...I might agree if, say, Christians were recruiting youth from some other definable path, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, but to simply provide youth with a moral path as opposed to an empty trail hardly deserves the pejorative ‘targeting’
...also, a believer may limit himself to one specific stated belief system, but the concept of deity is as unlimited as the human mind itself...that a Christian can view the pantheism of ancient Rome as a valid belief sysytem is not impossible on its face...I know this, because I believe it...
...also, if religion and science come acropper upon crossing paths, how do you explain the tremendous sceitific acheivements of the United States, an avowedly Christian (or should we merely say religious) society...
“When you find an athiest scientist who claims that science conclusively “proves” there is not G-d, ask them: What exactly caused the Big Bang?”
I’ve heard two good analogies to counter them and their ‘Big Bang’..........
1. If a tornado passes through a plane salvage yard enough times.......it will ‘create’ a usable plane ready for take-off.
2. If you blow up a pile of paint cans enough times......... eventually you’ll ‘create’ a reproduction of the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.