Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I know they're wrong. There's a difference. No 'perspective' exists that says there if tangible proof for the existence of god.
|
I'm pretty sure i know you're wrong, does that mean it would be a good idea for me to call you a delusional idiot?
Quote:
|
Science is only limited by what we don't know yet. As our understanding of the universe grows, these situations without reason will slowly sink into oblivion.
|
Do you think that science can ultimately envelope all situations without reason? If so, how is this not a faith based position?
Quote:
|
As I said above, science often runs contrary to the 1500 year old book called the Bible, or the Qu-ran, or the Torah. The example I gave above, evolution vs. creation, should make that clear. Evolution is by far the best explanation for the origin of life. The bible says that humans were created walking upright and talking one day. You must see how those two explanations are contradictory.
|
Like i said, you don't seem capable of seeing the distinctions between different theistic belief systems with respect to their abilities to absorb scientific information. Not all theists are of the strict interpretation variety.
Quote:
|
Common sense is connected with science. Common sense is how we come to conclusions based on evidence. The only proof I need is the meanings of the words faith and reason. The definitions make them opposed. If you don't think they are opposed, then maybe you should use different terminology. As for the rats and rags thing, at least I would be trying. At least I could ask, "How does this work?" and make an effort to explain it. Sure it would wrong, and a few centuries ago I would be well aware of the functionality of the reproductive systems on mammals which makes your example tremendously weak, but the struggle for truth is what it's all about. It's not about accepting what others claim on blind faith. It's about thinking.
|
No, logic is connected with science. Common sense is how people come to the conclusion that rats come from oily rags. Common sense is what people who can't be bothered with the science use to make decisions.
How is theism not an honest effort at answering the question "how does this work"? Perhaps in a few centuries science will have an answer and your ghost can ride around on a ghostly high horse and hand out "i told you so's" to all the theist ghosts you come across.
Quote:
|
So go right ahead and explain to me how the existence of god is reasonable.
|
It follows logically from the assumptions on which it is based.
Quote:
|
Love is an emotion which is accompanied by biochemical reactions that can be measured. Yes, I absolutely can prove that I love my family.
|
No, you can't. Do you honestly think that some scientist could hook you up to some machine, ask you about your family and then say conclusively that you love them? How exactly does this test work?
Quote:
|
I've had the discussion 1000 times, and no one has yet given me a reason to believe that god is real. The supernatural is by definition unprovable by natural law. How can you say something is reasonable when it cannot be explained or proven at all? Only someone who is honest with him or herself can try to explain reason in pertaining to theism or diesm.
|
It is reason based on faith. I suspect the faith part is what you have the problem with.
Quote:
|
They are, again by definition, opposed. Do I really have to link dictionary.com? Is this really going to turn into that kind of discussion? Look up faith then look up reason. It's as plain as day that they are opposed in that one uses proof, evidence, method, and the other is devoid of proof, evidence, method.
|
I don't know if we can trust the dictionary, after all, they think theists are agnostics and that agnostics are atheists or something.
If you're trying to point out that reason and faith are opposites, well, maybe. It's a trivial observation. Just because two things could be considered opposites does not mean that they are opposed in any sort of meaningful sense. A stapler and staple remover are opposites in their functions, but to claim that the ability to use them both could only be the result of some sort of inner turmoil is ridiculous. The notion of faith and reason engaged in a death match over the future of the human race is perhaps somewhat understandable, but the general trend seems to be moving in the opposite direction.