View Single Post
      12-02-2007, 08:31 PM   #112
its ray den
Second Lieutenant
2
Rep
206
Posts

Drives: 2004 Mazda6s
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
I should’ve said Personal as opposed to collective confirmed experience. Good catch.
in that case i disagree. real/truth has nothing to do with "collective confirmed experience" (i take this to mean that they majority agrees after seeing the evidence). just because something is the popular belief doesn't make it true.

back in the day, people thought the earth was the center of the universe and every revolves around it. they came to this conclusion using scientific observations as well so at that time, this was the most popular belief. however copurnicus and galileo came along and said something different, that the sun is the center of the earth. and sooner or later, we came to accept this to be the proper thought.

so what is it then? does truth change? or does it stay the same and our perception of truth changes? there's a big difference and may have huge consequences.

this leads me to talk about the whole thought of relative truth. a lot of people say "you can believe what you believe, and i can believe what i believe and we're all right." this is specifically applied to religion, when people don't really want to make a choice on the issue.

so let's think about this for a moment. can we all be right? if truth is truth, regardless of what we think then there is no way for everyone to be right. either 1 group of thought is right, or we're all wrong and have yet to discover the truth.

so my point here is, when we're talking about eternal consequences, a choice must be made.

Quote:
I find it very plausible. It has excellent EVIDENCE behind it.
from what i understand from the wikipedia quote you gave, there isn't an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggest the big bang theory holds more water than intelligent design. could not God have created the universe in the same way? all we have are observations, just like how the folks back in the day had observations to show that the sun revolves around the earth. theories always change especially as you discover more and more about the natural universe.

Quote:
You totally missed on Occam’s razor argument. Instead of introducing a creator (which by definition has to be more complex than his product), you seek a simpler solution, like:

Maybe clock didn’t come to be in this stage, maybe evolved over hundreds of thousands of years…maybe it started as observation of daylight, nighttime, seasons, sundial…..
OK, now you’ll say: “Yes, but man “created” the clock! Therefore it has a creator.”
And, I’ll reply: Sure, the creator that exist in natural world.

Design is NOT the only alternative to chance. Natural selection is a better alternative. Natural selection explains how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any intelligent guidance.
bleh. evolution. there's just too many things out there on this that i can't keep it all straight. i believe in evolution. i believe in natural selection, survival of the fittest, microevolution. but i have trouble believing that evolution can produce new species. that a single cell organism can evolve into the complex world we live in today. i won't say it's impossible.. but ever since i heard it in jr high (my pre-christian years), i had a hard time believing that.

Quote:
Very accurate. It is known as The Goldilocks zone. So here is the question for you:
Why take such self centered egoistic look at it? Why say that it has been created just for us?
Could it be that we adopted to the environment and became what we are?
Humans also believed that Earth is the center of the Universe. Until scientific observarion proved otherwise.
1. why is it egotistical to believe the the earth is a very special planet? that was really my only point.

2. so you agree that what we know from science can change and is hardly absolute truth?

Quote:
Anti Christian doesn’t mean anti Christians.
i'm describing the sources as anti christian. here's the deal.. there's a difference between studying something to form an opinion and studying something to support your opinion. i don't know about the authors of the sources, but i'm sure the producer of that video is an anti-christian.

so to end this post, all i wanted to point out is that there is no reason that science and faith is mutually exclusive. there is no reason that a person of spiritual faith is foolish and does not use science, logic and reason to believe what they believe because men of pure science use just as much faith into their data and observations. in essence, you're not better than me, and i'm not better than you.

i was watching "a beautiful mind" the other night and heard this dialogue that, for me, is so true to our discussion.

Alicia: How big is the universe?
Nash: Infinite.
Alicia: How do you know?
Nash: I know because all the data indicates it's infinite.
Alicia: But it hasn't been proven yet.
Nash: No.
Alicia: You haven't seen it.
Nash: No.
Alicia: How do you know for sure?
Nash: I don't, I just believe it.
Alicia: It's the same with love I guess.

addendum: there's this really great book by CS Lewis called Mere Chtistianity. it explains the christian faith with easy to follow reason. it's not preachy at all and if you read it, you'd at least understand why christians believe and how they get to that point.