Posted on 07/31/2008 12:54:12 PM PDT by AreaMan
>> Provide some empirical evidence that your God is more real than Woden.
I do not bow before the altar of the empirical. I fully admit that my faith requires a leap beyond the empirical. I admit that I cannot empirically prove the existence of God. I admit that I cannot prove the Resurrection of Christ. There are a great many portions of my faith which will eternally defy proof — and I am entirely comfortable with that.
My point is not that my religion can beat your anti-religion in an empirical pissing match — but that the fundamentals of atheism, like all faiths, inherently relies on leaps beyond the empirical.
Once that fact is established (which it cannot be logically denied) — then its simply a matter of how you weigh the evidence. The evidence before me suggests the existence of God. You go a different way ... and that’s fine. But to act as if your faith is based on empirical evidence is simply a fallacy. It cannot be, because it necessarily answers questions which are beyond the scientific.
My point ultimately is — perhaps you shouldn’t be such a disrespectful clown simply because you’ve come to a different conclusion about the existence of God. Perhaps you should be humble enough to admit that you don’t know for SURE any more than we do. You, like us all, are making a leap of faith based on your own assumptions. You’re guessing.
H
The Bible is not a science textbook. It is the best basic explanation of how life (and everything else) started. And it is the best guide to "complete humanity" -- including both physical morality and spiritual security.
Darwinism is, so far, man's "best shot" at attempting to understand how life (once it started) arrived at the condition in which it now exists. There is slim hope that science will ever satisfactorily explain the absolute origin of the physical universe. There is zero chance that science will ever explain -- or even, approximate -- religion.
"E = MC2" -- and -- "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life."
Both are divine truths.
I am a scientist (physical chemist, now retired) -- and -- I am a Christian and believer in Divine creation and design of the universe, and all that it contains. I apologize for neither. I am superbly comfortable and secure with both my science and my religion.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ask yourself, (no need to try and convince the rest of us); "How secure and comfortable am I with my future -- considering that I realize that I am afflicted with a terminal disease, known as 'life'?"
~~~~~~~~~~
I am happy and secure in both "worlds" -- and look forward to departing this life with great assurance of entering a better life. Can you say the same?
What do you mean by the "most love"/ How do you distinguish more love from less love?
I am not an atheist
How do you show your love for a woman?
>> Not truth, just wishful thinking.
Perhaps you’re not understanding. Clearly. My use of the term “truth” is exactly the same as yours. I have not declared Christian doctrine “truth”. I have declared certain unknowable facts “truth” ... such as the following:
That God either (1) exists or, (2) doesn’t exist ... is a “truth”. I could be entirely wrong about the existence of God, and it would still qualify as a “truth”. The origin of life is a “truth” — regardless of whether I am right about those origins. The ultimate fate of human consciousness after death is a “truth”, regardless of whether Christianity is right about what occurs after death.
My point is not that I am right about the facts surrounding these “truths” ... but that the true nature of these items/events are simply unknowable. These truths are, and always will be, beyond the reach of the scientific method.
My point wasn’t that I have the answer ... just that science will not, and cannot, ever have the answer to these questions. These “truths” are beyond the capabilities of science.
H
>> How do you show your love for a woman?
I am afraid I’ll not answer that question in polite company.
H
>> I am not an atheist
Like I said ... I really couldn’t care less.
Care to respond to the rest of the post?
H
No it isn't. My concept of truth relies on scientific method. Yours is whatever you choose to believe.
Accept that your belief in Jesus relies on faith and not fact. Faith is cool but it isn't a way to establish truth.
Once you establish a criterion, we can test to find out who you loved the most.
>> No it isn’t. My concept of truth relies on scientific method. Yours is whatever you choose to believe.
That doesn’t even make sense. I made no declaration about the origins of life — but whatever those origins are certainly constitutes a “truth”.
Science cannot prove the origin of life. But there has to be an origin. That origin, even when not provable, exists and is a “truth” of life. Correct?
H
Prove it.
>>> [to the question “how do you show your love to a woman] I am afraid I’ll not answer that question in polite company.
>> Once you establish a criterion, we can test to find out who you loved the most.
First, it was a joke. Lighten up.
Second — “love” cannot be measured. Perhaps the trappings of love can be measured — money, gifts, sex, whatever. But, even when you quantify the trappings, you cannot entirely prove “love” ... all you can prove is the trappings. Perhaps I was faking the trappings, fabricating evidence to make it appear that I loved someone that I didn’t. That isn’t particularly empirical or scientific ...
Science isn’t like a jury — “beyond a reasonable doubt” type stuff. It requires actual proof. Unlike a Court room, circumstantial evidence will not suffice.
H
If you look into Myers' rants, you will find that he not immune from acts of faith himself. He calls global warming skeptics "deniers"
>>> But there has to be an origin
>> Prove it.
The mere existence of life on Earth proves that it originated from somewhere ... just as the existence of the computer I’m typing on proves that it has an origin. Perhaps it was a Dell factory, perhaps it was made by trolls on the plant Jupiter ... but it came from somewhere.
Is it your contention that life on Earth has no origin?
H
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.