Which in most circumstances I can imagine, is the proper course of action. How many great discoveries would not have been made if scientists reacted to every unexplainable observation with: “ahhh, it must be a miracle…God must have done that”.No, I believe that such finding would only cause “scientists” to force the evidence into a new, much more complex, materialistic explanation of such findings.
What evidence do you imagine? It’s not so uncommon for scientists to declare they have no understanding of some phenomena (eg. what might have caused a Big Bang).Never would scientists admit to evidence suggesting the existence of God or anything spiritual!
Are you claiming that the Church censors Catholic scientists or are you claiming there are no Catholic scientists?If “scientists” ever found evidence for the existence of God or anything spiritual, do you think they would be allowed to say so?
You are assuming incorrectly that all scientists are of the same mind. No doubt there are staunchly atheistic scientists. Some of them are in powerful positions, exerting control over funding and publication within their spheres of influence. Be that as it may, there is no central authority over scientific thought, and there are many scientists who have a strong faith which is not in conflict but is truly in harmony with science.No, I believe that such finding would only cause “scientists” to force the evidence into a new, much more complex, materialistic explanation of such findings. Never would scientists admit to evidence suggesting the existence of God or anything spiritual!
Here is your problem. you view all scientist as Stephen Hawking types who reject the existence of God while in reality scientists like Georges Lemaître, (a catholic priest and scientist who proposed the big ban theory) exist.Never would scientists admit to evidence suggesting the existence of God or anything spiritual!
Your belief is wrong. Scientists such as Francis Collins (Protestant) or Ken Miller (Catholic) would happily admit to such evidence.No, I believe that such finding would only cause “scientists” to force the evidence into a new, much more complex, materialistic explanation of such findings. Never would scientists admit to evidence suggesting the existence of God or anything spiritual!
The problem with all these arguments about the existence of God is that the arguments are taken separately between the logical construct of God, and the physical evidence as laid out in the Gospels. We have Jesus, claiming to be God, and he works miracles which cannot be explained rationally (at least without a lot of tortured argumentation or outright rejecting the body of evidence without being open to its authenticity), and is attested to be the Son of God by those around him. On the other hand, we have a universe which is physical existence, and there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how it came into being, whether existence can spring from nothing, etc. Most arguing against the faith tend to focus on one side or the other, without trying to tackle both at the same time, because it becomes very difficult to do so. Even a casual study of the Gospels themselves shows that they are not written as myths, and contain enough “human” elements to very clearly show that the people of the time thought they were quite literally living and studying with one they felt to be divine in nature. (as an aside, Skeptic magazine grudgingly admitted that they had weighed the evidence and felt that Jesus was a real person, though they did not obviously go so far as to ascribe any divine nature to Him, of course). This is a slippery slope, though, for if people admit that Jesus was real, then the writings about Him also make no sense unless he was divine in nature, etc.I just want to point out the deacon at my church is a scientist. I don’t think it’s a scientific question, I think it’s a matter of logic and philosophy. I find it much more logical to believe the existence of God than to have faith in the Non-existence of God (kind of hard to prove a negative)
A lot of miracles are ascribed to many people through history. Didn’t Isaiah raise someone from the dead? Miracles are ascribed to Krishna, the Buddha, Mohammed and to many others. Are you saying that Mohammed’s miracles show that he was truly a Prophet?This is a slippery slope, though, for if people admit that Jesus was real, then the writings about Him also make no sense unless he was divine in nature, etc.
No, I actually don’t. If you would read my comment more carefully, I am simply pointing out that people try to take, in arguing for against faith, a single point and try to focus solely on that, while ignoring that there is difficulty in doing so. Most of these discussions need to be held holistically. Obviously, if p + q → r, then proving p → 0 or r → 0 should suffice. (if my notation is off, I apologize - it’s been a while)A lot of miracles are ascribed to many people through history. Didn’t Isaiah raise someone from the dead? Miracles are ascribed to Krishna, the Buddha, Mohammed and to many others. Are you saying that Mohammed’s miracles show that he was truly a Prophet?
Jesus fed 5,000 people with a few loaves and fished. Vimalakirti fed 80,000 people on a single bowl of rice (Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, chapter 10) and Vimalakirti only claimed to be a Bodhisattva, not a god.
You need to do a lot more work on this line of argument.
Far from it. I am Buddhist, not atheist, so I have no problem with faith in general. I do have problems with many of the specifics of the Abrahamic religions.The problem that you are specifically having, however, is that you are attempting to disprove the basis for faith
If you’re a Buddhist, why exactly are you here? You must be finding yourself becoming attached to argumentation and the attempts to disprove others?Far from it. I am Buddhist, not atheist, so I have no problem with faith in general. I do have problems with many of the specifics of the Abrahamic religions.
Why ask why? All are welcome here.If you’re a Buddhist, why exactly are you here?