Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
All I am saying is, if you are going to make these kinds of claims, they need to be supported by evidence. There might have been such cases but without any evidence is just comes across as the same old anti-religious prejudice that you see so often here.
All I am saying is, if you are going to make these kinds of claims, they need to be supported by evidence. There might have been such cases but without any evidence is just comes across as the same old anti-religious prejudice that you see so often here.
Got any examples?
link
I gave the link to the bullet-point biography on PBS's website. Note the point labelled "1633". Galileo is a pretty well known case, and PBS is a non-biased source. (well, not KILLING him... that's silly. But they certainly harassed him over a geocentric cosmology which emphasized the importance of the Earth in the cosmos)
I am not going to defend the Catholic Church in that matter, nor the inquisition, which was monsterous. But I still don't think it proves that Christianity was overall anti-science.
Of course we will never know how history would have played out had not Christianity taken root in Europe when it did, but I still believe, on balance, that it was a civilizing influence and one of the main factors behind the rise of Western science. And I don't accept the 'science vs religion' dichotomy, except for in regards to specific issues. I think the philosophical views espoused by the representatives of atheist ideologies are generally incoherent.
Yeah, you assume that everyone would just accept the premise that a god or gods have omnipotence. When I argue, it is a factor I keep in mind that it has never been proven that a god would have it. So you have to approach the argument as if it is not a fact. I rarely accept it as a fact in the argument, however; when someone counter argues in this case, typically they use the omnipotence argument as you did.
But who is to say that that being is that much greater? You are assuming again that it would have to be a massively greater being to create the universe. But why does that have to be the case? Provide for me something that substantiates the claim that a god would have to be immensely more powerful to a point we couldn't comprehend. It seems as though we figured out a lot of things about the universe, what's to say we won't discover more? Or find ways to manipulate them at the same time?
Krumple;173366 wrote:well what would those reasons be? Is he paid by the hour so he wants to spread out the work over the week, where as he could have completed it all in one day? What is the motivation? Does it drain it's power, it's ability to create things so it can't do it all at once? If that is the case then it does not live up to the omnipotence definition. So what is the reason? Is it just because he wanted to, without any reason? That doesn't rationally make sense.
As I said before that even if he were omnipotent, how could I possibly know? It would most likely be out of my comprehension, and even if he took just 1 or 100 days we would still have no way of affirming that he did or did not so. But remember that this argument was made upon the idea that he took a certain amount of Earth days, which is a completely uncertain and unreliable proposal to begin with.
Krumple;173366 wrote:There you go again, making assumptions without any proofs. How do you know that this god is not bound by physical laws? It is funny that you make all these assertions about me not being able to verify the amount of power or ability a god would have but then turn around and make the claim, "not bound by physical laws." How can you make that claim if I can not varify that god's power or ability?
So this was again assuming of omnipotence, but since we have cleared that assumption there is nothing for me to prove as my argument was that such a god would obviously not be bound by physical laws (which is correct) if we assume omnipotence. But you did not explain something to me, what in the world does "where is your reference to how much power it would have" even imply? (since it does not actually even mean anything).
Krumple;173366 wrote:I haven't forgot, you have not confirmed that any god or gods actually exhibit omnipotence. You are guessing that a god would be, but where is your work? You just keep rehashing it as if I accept the argument that a god or gods are omnipotent in nature. I don't accept it as being the case until you prove it to me.
Again this falls under the assumption of omnipotence.
Krumple;173366 wrote:It was not I who made the reference to days. It is a bibilical construct and I would agree with you that the reference is flawed but so is the concept of god itself. It is clear by the story in gensis that it is nothing more than the writings of someone making up the story from a human perspective. There is absolutely no validity in the story at all that would lead me to believe that this is how a god did it or that even a god exists and inspired this work. If a god did inspire the work then it did a horrible job at inspiring it.
Now this is a completely different issue as of course there is no evidence for any God, but on the other hand since there is no evidence that there isn't, you cannot state it as a fact.
Krumple;173366 wrote:Sure I can. If I view a god that would send a person to damnation for a simple mistake like refusing to believe in it's existence. In my opinion I would be far loftier if I said that I would never place any being into that kind of situation. I would consider anyone who did not believe or follow such a god as being loftier than that god in morality. So you can make the claim that that god also has omnipotence but if this is how it functions and this is how it has designed things. Then by all means I am far better in this regard than that god. Just because you have some mighty power it does not make you right or just.
Your own subjective opinion.
Krumple;173366 wrote:Well I try to answer any questions posed to me, but there might be times when I might miss one or two. So if I have missed any of your questions that you find important to the discussion feel free to point them out, or ask them again and I'll respond to them.
You stuck to all my questions which I appreciate, so for this alone I thank you, It is just that I had moments when entire posts of mine were completely ignored by a certain someone upon proving him erroneous.
Science only wants to discover the truth rather than accept unfounded myths.
It has myths of its own, though. Including the one about not having myths.
Yes there are myths even within science however; it still aims to clear them away with the truth. Where as religion doesn't care about truth, it only wants to maintain the myth. There is a difference.
Well I don't know about that. I don't think any intelligent believer wants to believe in myths.
Myths have a symbolic meaning and if they are interpreted carefully, they can provide insights into many great truths which science can never ascertain for certain.
It is also unarguable that science plays the role of a surrogate religion in many lives, by giving people a sense of the greater story of which they can be part. Many people 'believe in Darwin' in exactly the same way, and often for very similar reasons, that others 'believe in the Bible'.
No they don't. Why do you think that?
Yes there are myths even within science however; it still aims to clear them away with the truth. Where as religion doesn't care about truth, it only wants to maintain the myth. There is a difference.
Do you mind pointing out what you consider to be myths in science?
Why don't you ask jeeprs hes the one who insists that science is flawed.
I thought perhaps you agreed.
IMO, I don't think jeeprs is stating that science is flawed, but that it has a particular way of approaching knowledge and the world, and that particular way precludes some things if all we accept is science and science only in all our thoughts on life.
But that is an unfinished thought (it's been bugging me). Two things about it:
1) This is not really science vs religion. It is framed that way, but this is not it. It's about two types of approaching truth, one that is often typified by science, and one that is often typified by religion. Some arguments that work well against pure science are meaningless when you consider the underlying argument.
2) It is possible, isn't it, that the fact that we are precluded from knowing certain things by a method of approaching knowledge, means that we can't know them.
So really what is the criticism as stated? It is vacuously true as stated, by the real criticism is hidden and implied. It is often said that god is unknowable anyway.