|
| | | | | Lets get out of the Dark and Middle Ages and Antiquity, shall we? |
| |
| | | | It's amazing; science can cure anything, given time. Yet in 10,000 years of recorded history, we still have everything wonderful that existed in the Dark Ages and prior to that; mercenaries, pirates, religious wars, financial wars, power hungry entities, etc. We will continue endlessly to come so far.
I'm waiting for the day when science can explain away guilt.
The depravity of man is at once the most unpopular of the Christian doctrines and yet the most empirically verifiable. - Malcolm Muggeridge
http://www.renewamerica.us
The depravity of man is at once the most unpopular of the Christian doctrines and yet the most empirically verifiable. - Malcolm Muggeridge |
| |
| | | | Science, with all it's amazing wonderment, has never tried to disprove there is a god. In fact, I have read articles from many scientists who are of one faith or another and believe in god in one fasion or another. Cathoilc, Islamic, christian, Pagan, they are all out there in the scientific community. I do think this in itself makes the question rather invalid. Why would one try to disprove the other?
Myself, most know I am of one religion or another, which one does not matter. But since one person adds a twist, I guess I should as well. Try thinking of nature instead of god. When you look closely, almost nothing of nature can be explained by science. In fact, the origins of life via nature can only be explained as to how, not why. These questions will never be truely answered until someone can talk to nature. Now some will say, god is nature, or god created nature. Either way, even science says there is nature. So in fact, science does not try to disprove the existance of god, it substantiates it's existance. A scientist who swears there is no god, is a scientist that does not believe in science. There is no end to science, as there is no end to nature.
No matter how much faith, or lack of faith we have... we will not know the answers in our lifetime.
"To know, is to know you know nothing."
-Confucius |
| |
| | | | bree (12/27/2007)
The fallacy is that God was invented to explain the unknown.
I was not directly addressing whether or not God exists. I was pointing out the errant logic (and errant theology) behind jrodmc's statement regarding weather forcasting. |
| |
| | | | The fallacy is that God was invented to explain the unknown.
This "fallacy" as you call it, is a fallacy in your opinion, not in the opinion of many other types of people who are all reasonable people. The idea that you can tell us all that what you believe is a fact, is arrogant and concieted. You cannot tell anyone else what they should or should not believe. And you do by stating this as a fact. For example, I believe that your version of god, is a version made up to explain away much that we do not understand and to give humans the belief there are streets paved with "gold" awaiting them. Kind of a silly notion, since if heaven were real, there would be no value to gold, thus making the streets worthless.
perhaps we should all be using, "I believe" in our statements, instead of stating facts not in the books of reality.
"To know, is to know you know nothing."
-Confucius |
| |
| | | | The set of things we (as a species) don't know how to do keeps getting smaller.
Your grasp of logic (I believe) is what would appear errant. How do you define the scale of things we don't know how to do? Science, like the numberline, stretches to infinity, and your theology (I believe) seeks to set science as some sort of god, or at least your seemingly inferred belief that given enough time, we (as a species) will know how to do everything.
The depravity of man is at once the most unpopular of the Christian doctrines and yet the most empirically verifiable. - Malcolm Muggeridge
http://www.renewamerica.us
The depravity of man is at once the most unpopular of the Christian doctrines and yet the most empirically verifiable. - Malcolm Muggeridge |
| |
|
|