Posted on 07/31/2008 12:54:12 PM PDT by AreaMan
I do not operate on faith-based reasoning. It is easy to extrapolate from existing knowledge that the origin of our universe was a natural occurance. There has never been any proof of any supernatural cause.
you can't even prove that Jesus ever existed
>> Current theory may be wrong in some degree
I can virtually guarantee you that “current theory” is wrong in multiple “degrees”. It always is. Further evidence that perhaps the human mind is incapable of understanding certain “truths”.
>> but scientific method is the only proven methodology for establishing truth.
Perhaps your faith in the scientific method is misplaced. The scientific method will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. It will never be able to prove what existed before time, after death, or at the end of time. It will never find the bounds of the universe, or explain the creation of life. The scientific method remains fully incapable of explaining certain scenarios of healing which simply defy scientific logic (such as an acquaintance whose brain cancer recently vanished).
There are many truths which are simply outside the reach of the scientific method — and, I would argue, probably outside the reach of human comprehension.
H
>> Empiricism works. It has utility.
Its utility is limited to that which can be comprehended by the human mind.
H
Ignorance doesn’t help your position - seriously, are you going to try to claim to be driven by “intellectual integrity”? Laughable.
Jesus’ existance is more of a matter of historical record than ANY other person of that age.
Offer some evidence that the human mind is incapable of understanding something.
I believe you've already provided such evidence on this thread.
Name a contemporary(while Jesus was supposedly alive) account of Jesus outside of the Bible.
A cute surrender. Thank you.
"Ought?"
I don't understand this. The universe and everything in it is one gigantic fluke, and yet we "ought" to do so and so and "ought" to refrain from thus and such? How does one arrive at such a conclusion from this foundation?
Showing that species are going extinct faster now than in the past does not automatically obligate us to any particular behavior.
Other than an Omnipotent Creator, no one can obligate us to do, or refrain from doing, anything that we can and want to.
I have to admit that your ignorance and willfull blindness to truth is frustrating.
Seriously, you’ve shown that you have no ability to reason, despite your insistance that that is what you base your life on.
You’re doing the equivalent of covering your ears and shouting “I’m not listening” when the failings of your assertions are pointed out.
Get back to us when you have sufficient “investigation, learning, etc” to “offer an opinion” on that which you disparage.
No. Your wishful thinking isn't truth. Your God is a grownup Santa Claus.
Why must it be outside the bible?
Do you wish to exclude any other historical texts that won’t line up with your preconceived, irrational conclusions?
There is no reason to exclude a reliable collection of historical texts, especially when it was written by eyewitnesses (more than one writer) during the time of OTHER eyewitnesses who could have refuted it.
Instead of trying to insult me, prove me wrong. Provide a contemporary source for the existence of Jesus outside of the Bible. There is as much evidence for Krishna (have I not drunk the soma?) and Zeus.
Well, if its easy you can show me, and -- with all truth being measurable -- you can do so with the specific measurements, right?
alright, you assert this, YOU provide proof.
>> Offer some evidence that the human mind is incapable of understanding something.
As an atheist, you surely understand the inability to prove a negative ... additionally, you surely understand the impossibility of me explaining something that the human mind cannot comprehend (as I am limited by my own, very human, mind).
You’re the one making the declaration that the human mind is capable of understanding all. According to the Holy Scientific Method — you must prove that assumption.
Scientific atheism rests on the declaration that all assumptions require proof, and that every truth can be proven empirically. The fundamental assumption of this theology, that the human mind is infinitely capable, defies the very “empiricism” and “proof” that atheism supposedly rests upon.
So — you say the mind is infinitely capable of understanding — and I ask for the empirical basis for that assumption.
If you have no empirical basis for that assumption (which you cannot) — your theology rest on faith no less than mine. Your faith is in humanity’s ability to understand infinitely, mine is in something greater, but yours is faith-based nonetheless. It is certainly not empirical.
H
Data is what it is. Should Geologists sugar coat the fact that there is no evidence of a worldwide deluge for 40 days and 40 nights some few thousands of years ago? Should Biologists sugar coat that we share common ancestry with other primates? Should Astronomers have been cognizant of their mandate to “coexist as peacefully as possible” with religious dogma that put the Earth at the center of the universe?
Once you get involved in that you are doing Apologetics, not Science. Science is what it is, if your religious beliefs contradict readily apparent reality it is your religious beliefs that must be called into question, not reality.
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Christian, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas
Because mythologies do not constitute evidence. Does Isis exist just because Egyptian holy books say so?
As it stands now, you're getting shredded like cheese.
That is empirically self-evident.
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.