Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
That's because there is no valid evidence
The pope. Popeing about.
- Thread starter benneh
- Start date
That's because there is no valid evidence
The 3 billion who have abandoned logic and reason in favour of big beardy men, sitting on clouds, passing judgement on their creations for their own amusement
And if 3 billion perceive it then that leaves about 3.7 billion that don't.
Nope, I was hinting that written evidence isn't necessarily rubbish even if it's textual and old.
If someone were to believe in God/Allah/Budda/whatever then the logical course would be to have an equally open mind to other deities from a scientific viewpoint. The specific faith would define what is considered "true".
However the main point I'm making is that the bible has it's place as first hand evidence of events that occurred in the middle east around that time period, albeit quite possibly fancified to an extent. Whether that is sufficient for faith in God is up to a person.
For example, there is scientific reasoning for the 10 plagues of Egypt, so just because it's written in the bible shouldn't immediately be discredited.
I refer you to RDMs post as I'm going home from work and as much as I like my office it's quicker to just highlight his reply (which is the point I'm making).
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
The point I was making that's also gone over your head is that written texts aren't actual proof that a historical event happened, the bible is an excellent example of that
an ancient description of events cannot be taken as actual proof that it happened, i.e do you accept that Zeus sat on mount Olympus & hurled thunderbolts do you ?
Yeah, I misunderstood sorry. Posting here while packing for uni and sorting out bills leads to a few skim read posts
.The point I would like to make, is that where we can find physical historical evidence that corresponds to what's in the books/texts, it adds a lot to their credibility.
I know, I am just making a point that science is not absolute. Both Atheism and Religion are. Agnosticism is the sceptical minds natural base.
The Peppered Moth is what you are referring to and there are alternative scientific theories as to how the moth 'evolved' including accusations of fraud etc...
setting that aside however, even creationists accept that it is evidence of micro-evolution but not evidence of speciation and thus not Natural Selection.
I fully accept Evolution and do not ascribe to the beliefs that I have supposed, but I think you can see how easy it is to co-opt any scientific theory including evolution to show evidence of God. You simply have to say that evolution is Gods mechanism, as we do not know the why, science cannot and should not state any absolute negative to that claim it should simply give us the evidence it has and the theory.
Last edited:
The problem with history, especially ancient history is that quite a few events that are "known" to have happened are documented in very few sources. So we do in fact take quite a bit of history on faith.
As for the Greek gods, I love em to bits, would much rather have them as a diety than the stuffy old abrahamic God.
Yeah, I misunderstood sorry. Posting here while packing for uni and sorting out bills leads to a few skim read posts
The point I would like to make, is that where we can find physical historical evidence that corresponds to what's in the books/texts, it adds a lot to their credibility.
I would be very careful going down that route as there are several things from historical sources that do in fact agree with the Bible.
Only by your definition of valid evidence.
No, you can't. Because as soon as you describe it as a scientific theory then it cannot be used as proof of a non-scientific concept. Hence why ID cannot be considered science because you need to break the rules of science for it to count as a scientific theory. You can certainly say "Evolution is God's mechanism" but that has no bearing on it as a scientific theory. (I also believe that the science doesn't back that up either, but that is going into the deep bowels of evolutionary theory I am not even going to pretend to understand. Something about tracing mutations genetically pretty much show that there was no guidance involved in it.)
It shows micro-evolution within a specific species and even Lenski admits it is not evidence of Speciation or Natural Selection on a wider scale. So much like the Pepper-Moth experiment science makes assumptions based on observable evidence. By your absolute requirement of real, testable, re-creatable evidence you should remain sceptical of evolution.
Obviously we are not, but I hope you can see the point I am trying to make about how interpretations of the same observations can be construed in different ways considering the faith of the observer.
I quite agree, but I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Evolution is a mechanism, it can explain the How, but religion can accept evolution as a mechanism created by God quite simply because Science has not explained the why. (or in the case of Evolution, fully explained the how.)
Atheists use evolution as proof that there is no God so are using a scientific theory to refute a Faith one, so Religion can use a Faith to co-opt that theory as proof especially considering the holes in the theory.
For example, evolution is accepted to be the mechanism in which life on earth changes and new species are created and so on. Religion can accept this within their faith simply by stating that God created this mechanism, as science has no evidence to the contrary who is to say they are wrong, we can say that it is improbable from a scientific or logical point of view, yet someone of Faith could quite easily just state the improbable is not impossible.
It does seem however that we are getting away from the point that what people will accept as evidence and what is evidence are not always the same thing, that evidence is not absolute. In hindsight evolution was a poor choice of analogy as the conversation has become about the science of evolution rather than the difference between faith based and science based evidence and the requires of each.
Last edited:
I have never, and never would, state that someone is wrong in their belief. I would however say that is very highly improbable, especially as there is no evidence what so ever in the history of man to suggest a god. Faith is not evidence... as you seem to suggest.
The believer has still failed to back up his beliefs. That's fine - just don't get ****y when someone points that out.
If by purposefully offend, you actually mean 'to ask difficult questions,' then I'd absolutely agree.
Last edited:
No, like most here you are attributing a supposition as my own belief which I have repeatedly said is not the case.
Faith is evidence to the person who holds that faith and those who share it. It is not to us because we do not accept the premise of their belief, that doesn't mean it is not evidence, only evidence we don't accept.
It is this concept that requires the critic of a faith to disprove according to evidence they will accept, rather than the person with Faith to prove with evidence the critic will accept.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
Faith is overrated. It's just the willingness to abandon reason in favour of placing a fluffy layer of feathers around one's life.
Faith is simply the fabrication of something that makes us feel better.
Just for the record, I know that you're making a point rather than necessarily expressing a belief.
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
As for the Greek gods, I love em to bits, would much rather have them as a diety than the stuffy old abrahamic God.
.
Well, if that's what we now call Greek Mythology how come the bible isn't classed as Christian mythology as it's similarly based on ancient texts ??
Indeed, at least you get the concept, most are just saying that there is no Evidence ad nauseum , and obviously my point is going completely over their heads.
No one is saying their evidence is reasoned or even logical, but they accept it as evidence and thus we are required to refute it, as they by their definition have proven it with their Faith. This why the atheists claim that religion must prove God exists, yet an atheist need not prove he doesn't holds no water. Religion according to their Faith have already proven their claim, it is up to the Atheist to prove they are wrong.
'Proving' something to yourself and proving it to others are completely different things. Surely the burden of proof still lies with the believers as they have yet to prove the existence of god to anyone but themselves.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Well no, they've advanced evidence at this point - it might be evidence that you, I, or anyone else for that matter doesn't accept as valid but it isn't necessarily something that you can disprove. If that is the situation then the logical position is simply to be agnostic about it, I'm agnostic about lots of things - often because they make no difference to my life so I can quite happily not worry about the "correctness" of them.
//edit and while we're on the subject - if a believer manages to convince a second person then in your estimation does the evidential burden suddenly move to the other side? If not then what is the threshold?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,564
- Location
- Warwickshire
...which illustrates that certain types of evidence might as well not exist, for all the good they do in proving their point. In certain scenarios, proof or lack of it is fruitless and irrelevant.
"BUT I DON'T NEED PROOF, I HAVE FAITH!!"
If I say that I am a deity myself and use bananas as the proof of it, it should hold equal water to anything that a Christian believes.
"BUT I DON'T NEED PROOF, I HAVE FAITH!!"
If I say that I am a deity myself and use bananas as the proof of it, it should hold equal water to anything that a Christian believes.