The point is that there are scientists who believe science can in principle explain everything, including those who are searching for a TOE…Just to be clear, in my posts above I’ve used ToE to mean the theory of evolution, as there is no theory of everything and even the idea that there could be a theory of everything is philosophically, mathematically and scientifically controversial.
That’s a very silly thing to think. How can the cause of all physical reality and law be so unimportant as to be deemed pointless? You wouldn’t deem an infinite number of bouncing universes as unimportant, yet some how a first cause is unimportant. Also you use the word distant, but who said anything about the first cause being physical and not present with us now?
Scientists don’t believe in science. They do science.
When we start with a false premise, it’s easy to run into this type of dillemma.
I fail to understand your point. What has that got to do with what i said?
Have you started out with a unknowable untestable thing and then gone from there?
I haven’t stated anything that is unknowable. The scientific principle of testing physical objects does not apply to the epistemological/ontological context in which i was making my argument. The context in which i was operating does not require scientific tests and neither does the knowledge acquired fall within the legitimate capacity of the scientific method.
Ross thought he’d found a way to destroy Hinduism and Buddhism, so what we have here is a creationist taking sides with atheists trying to use science to undermine religion.
Au contraire. The entire evolution/creation debate centers on whether folk can accept an unmoved mover who sets things running and doesn’t physically intervene. The Church’s own position on evolution is that God can’t be taken out of the equation.
Yes, I want to say well duh, but empathy bro, always empathy.
The Church? Last time I checked, the most respected philosophy of the “Catholic church” was Thomism, a philosophy which accepts the existence of real secondary causes and natural law.
That is not an issue for Existential Thomism. So long as it is understood that the universe acquires its reality and is sustained in reality by the power and being of God. This is not in contradiction with the idea of a physical naturally evolving universe.
It shouldn’t be. The creation & evolution debate is rooted in a scriptural fallacy. Its rooted in the mistaken belief that a literal interpretation of genesis is and has always been a core teaching and expression of the Christian faith. This is not true.
Well I wouldn’t want to go as far as saying “duh”, but there is evidently a poor and unreasonable understanding of Christianity being promoted by Creationists; and I think it is my duty to point that out. I think it was also my duty to point out how unreasonable it is to say that first cause is unimportant because the event happened a zilllion bounces ago. Given that the first cause is the root of all reality, I would have to say that such is the most important thing in the world, and it is important that you and I know about it.Yes, I want to say well duh, but empathy bro, always empathy.
I believe that your prejudice, is blinding you from seeing the truth of creationism. Science provides evidence for the Bible, not refutes it. Science has to be twisted around, to fit the evolutionary theory. It is like trying to fit square pegs into round holes, some of it will fit, but only if you shave off the edges. Are you saying that the Book of Genesis was a parable!!! I have heard scientific explanations, for almost every single part of Genesis.
Where do you think legends come from??? Many legends are based on truth, also where in the world did you hear that the Flood is a Babylonian legend, it has been around much longer than the Babylonians, and there are legends in almost every people group, across the globe about the Flood. The Ark was a real ship, and a model of the Ark, to scale will be built by AIG, in 2014.
I find it funny that right after you try and refute scripture, you use it to make a point. The Bible also says, Romans 12:2 “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” I agree we should integrate science, and the Bible, but not at the cost of nullifying the Word of God. Many people do not know how much scientific proof there is
Science doesn’t change its facts, men change their minds!! Science has always had the same laws, we just hadn’t discovered them, when men try to change science to fit their designs, it is just twisting the facts. Very true you embrace wisdom by reading the Bible, and memorizing God’s Word. The Catechesis, or oral teaching, if there is anyone out there that is confused by that, is nice to have, but not once in the Bible, does it state that it is a requirement to wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Very True!! Science is good to study, it helps you understand things about God’s creation, but when you start focusing on science, as the big picture, and God, as one of the pieces, then things start to go wrong. We should not become so obsessed with science, that we start to take our eyes off of the Lord. Neither should we try and completely separate the two, science is one of God’s creations, and should be studied and looked into as such, and plus it is really interesting.
Read my question again that I asked you on post number 879. You failed to answer me.
Actually, I am on Mindovermatter2’s side here and his, what you call, ‘nonsense’. I thought he had answered the question clearly, and in the best possible way. You are confusing me, and you need to explain yourself. In your posts # 877 and # 879, and to some extent in # 876 *), you sound llike the typical naturalist who only accepts scientifically, physically testable things. You really have some explaining to do.
It could be termed “scienceolatry”, “physicolatry”, “matterolatry” or “particlelatry”! Take your pick. I prefer the last. It sounds good… par-ti-cle-la-try… and it amounts to worshipping the smallest rather than the greatest…
Clarify his response to me so that I can understand it better. It is far from clear, and I see no answer.
That you cannot understand is just one of those things. Don’t take it to heart and don’t take it out on us by giving insults! Its not our fualt that you lack reasoning skills. You have to know what it is I am saying before you can decide whether the ideas are nonsense.