E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
Do we have the ability to test anything empirically pre Big Bang?Faith by contrast is believing in something you do not have the ability to empirically test.
Do we have the ability to test anything empirically pre Big Bang?Faith by contrast is believing in something you do not have the ability to empirically test.
Uhhh, yeah. That’s the whole point. ??… it is predicated on certain understanding of reality.
Mmmm hypothetical evidence, powerful stuff.Science has hypothesised a number of possible causes for the Big Bang: the multiverse, colliding branes and others.
We are supposed to take notice of hypothetical causes because…None of those hypothetical causes are intelligent, and all can potentially trigger the Big Bang.
So far, there is no scientific evidence to show that the BB happened by natural causes.So far there is no scientific evidence to show that intelligence is required in a cause for the Big Bang.
Yes. One of the strengths of science is that it is prepared to accept “we don’t know” as an answer pro tem.Your answer falls in the category of “we don’t know”.
No sir, not in sense that people believe prayer will heal them. I expect that the drug will likely resolve the infection based upon scientific data. However, I also know that if its resistant bacteria or is gram negative or positive and the infection is the other, the drug may be ineffective. For reasons demonstrable by scientific testing.No but you do believe you will be healed from a disease caused by strep when you take amoxicillin. It is not a guarantee that you will be healed.
I just don’t understand your point.
And that’s faith. Faith comes with hope. It is the same thing when you hope to get well after taking a drug. Even the doc that administers the drug has a lot of faith on the tested drug.No sir, not in sense that people believe prayer will heal them. I expect that the drug will likely resolve the infection based upon scientific data. However, I also know that if its resistant bacteria or is gram negative or positive and the infection is the other, the drug may be ineffective. For reasons demonstrable by scientific testing.
If a person prays for healing they are not just placing confidence in a model that’s reliably indicated to succeed. The very act of having faith is part of the process. It’s a main ingredient. And if they don’t have success, there’s no way to test the reasons why it failed. Because faith is not measurable.
Sorry, but if you think that putting your faith in God, and putting your faith in medicine is anything close to the same thing, then this couple, and may others like them have left a lot of dead children as testament to the fact that you’re wrong.And that’s faith. Faith comes with hope. It is the same thing when you hope to get well after taking a drug.
Of course God and medicine are not the same thing but faith is.Sorry, but if you think that putting your faith in God, and putting your faith in medicine
Tell that to those dead children…faith in God or faith in medicine…what’s the difference?Of course God and medicine are not the same thing but faith is.
Complete trust or confidence on something or someone.
Faith in God is also about the ‘hereafter’ or life after death, so i don’t know what you are talking about.Tell that to those dead children…faith in God or faith in medicine…what’s the difference?
The difference is that one has actual evidence to underpin that faith, while the other has nothing but fanciful claims and unwarranted hope.
Sure, but try prayer in lieu of insulin for a child with type 1 diabetes and see what that gets you.Giving birth in hospital is not a guarantee that the child will live and giving birth at home is not a guarantee that the child will die.In each case, you hope.
I think there’s some confusion. If i put my trust in God, i do so hoping that the condition is entirely reversed knowing that whatever the outcome is, it will be the will of God and even in the afterlife.Sure, but try prayer in lieu of insulin for a child with type 1 diabetes and see what that gets you.
So far, there is no scientific evidence to show that the BB happened by natural causes.
Your answer falls in the category of “we don’t know”.
Up until today, science has no convincing evidence to show that the universe happened by natural causes.Yes. One of the strengths of science is that it is prepared to accept “we don’t know” as an answer pro tem .
Up until today, theology has no convincing evidence to show that the universe happened by supernatural causes.Up until today, science has no convincing evidence to show that the universe happened by natural causes.
It was a warning against trying for a God-of-the-gaps strategy. That is a good way to make God smaller as the gap shrinks.Adding pro tem on the end of your answer has no real meaning. If you are hoping that science will prove you right eventually, then you are entering into the realms of faith.
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we do not know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.”
– Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Letters and Papers from Prison”
Eric_Hyom:![]()
Fair enough, i don’t want to cause you any problems.
By agreeing that God did not create Himself, then you also agree that God did not create life, since He Himself is alive. If God is eternal and uncreated then life is also eternal and uncreated since God is a living God.How did the universe and life start by natural causes? And without any help from from a God who created everything except himself.
Whether or not God created the universe depends on the definition of “universe”. The OP says:
From that I assume that you are talking about more than the material STEM universe. If that is the case then we are talking about the philosophical “All That Exists” (ATE) universe. Since God exists, then He is a part of the ATE universe. Since God is eternal then the ATE universe is also eternal. Hence, by the Kalaam argument the ATE universe did not have a cause/creator. Also anything outside the ATE universe does not exist, by definition, hence there is no existing external cause for the ATE universe.
- “For the purpose of this thread, can we define God as the creator of all that is seen and unseen.”
God may have created some parts of the ATE universe, but He did not create the entire ATE universe.
Rossum ,
The Living God. ‘ Through God , all our Souls will live forever and NO one dies ‘ not even Sinners.
Without being disrespectful , you seem to not understanding my friend.
Uhh but that’s the most natural position in the absence of empirical evidence and this applies to so many other realities; for example, up until today, we (you and me) just understand that darkness is real without any form of empirical evidence.Up until today, theology has no convincing evidence to show that the universe happened by supernatural causes.
Philosophy put science, originally named the philosophy of nature, into its special little sandbox with the instructions, “Only appeal to natural causes for your observed effects. Thou shalt not appeal to the supernatural. We have others who do that special work.” The reason: we cannot depend on miracles in mastering nature to our benefit.It was a warning against trying for a God-of-the-gaps strategy. That is a good way to make God smaller as the gap shrinks.
People who follow the Buddha know there IS life on other planets – scripture says so. Are you prepared to convert if scientists find life elsewhere in the universe?People who follow God know there is NO life on any other planet. Only the spiritual world.
I am Buddhist, not Christian. My understanding is different because my scriptures are different:Without being disrespectful , you seem to not understanding my friend.
“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.
– Dhammapada 20:7