Let's see proof of creation (originate, demon, seven, theory of evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm no expert, but from what little I've learned on the topic it sounds correct. What I fail to see is how this is evidence for any god. It has the same problem than the cosmological argument:
I don't know either. But he's the doc and he seems to think he's on to something.
For most believers with a strong testimony of God, based on whatever works for them, the search for empirical "proof" of God's existence is not for us, we already know. It's for those who choose not to believe.
"As I am becoming fond of writing in this thread: wrong methods, wrong tools..." Justamere
I apologize that us atheists and agnostics are not very good at playing "lets pretend" You have no tools except what you personally believe, and that's no tool at all.
As I see it, personal experience is not just a "belief", at least not to the person having that experience. Telling someone else about that experience or the conclusions you draw from it can be a demonstration of belief.
Reason and modern science have proven to be the most reliable sources in finding the truth. The problem with your belief in the Garden of Eden and the Adam and Eve story is that you can't scientifically prove it is true. It would therefore be illogical to accept the truth of your claims.
The wrong tools and wrong methods are faith and personal belief.
The right tools and right methods are modern science, reason and scepticism.
Once again, let me make my position clear. I am NOT opposed to the scientific method or manufactured tools. I love technology.
But science, good as it is in its own field, is not equipped to explore spiritual things, it was not designed to be. Religion is.
What some atheists are trying to do is put down spiritual things by demanding that the tools of science prove such things to them. It seems to me that such an unreasonable method results from desperation to prove an unprovable belief. How would you suggest that the scientific method be used to prove the Garden of Eden for example?
As I see it, it's not a matter of science versus religion. Most western religious people are probably into both. With respect, what is being created here as I see it is some atheists pretending that only THEY are on the side of science. That's not true, science and religion each have a place in modern life.
Last edited by justamere10; 10-01-2009 at 05:08 PM..
Once again, let me make my position clear. I am NOT opposed to the scientific method or manufactured tools. I love technology.
But science, good as it is in its own field, is not equipped to explore spiritual things, it was not designed to be. Religion is.
What some atheists are trying to do is put down spiritual things by demanding that the tools of science prove such things to them. It seems to me that such an unreasonable method is borne of desperation. How would you suggest that the scientific method be used to prove the Garden of Eden for example?
As I see it, it's not a matter of science versus religion. Most western religious people are probably into both. With respect, what is being created here as I see it is some atheists pretending that only THEY are on the side of science. That's not true, science and religion each have a place in modern life.
Your post seems to make an interesting point(intentional or unintentional). Theists tend to view personal experiences, feelings and testimonials to be adequate evidence of a divine being. Atheists on the otherhand tend to be empiricists of some sort. It's true that theists aren't all necessarily opposed to science, although they don't consider the question of the existence of god to be a matter of science. Atheists on the otherhand consider it to be a matter of science/logic. This isn't about hoping there is no afterlife, god etc. though, it's about applying logic and science to all claims rather than to all claims except your own. For example, if I said invisible pink rabbits exist, you would probably think that such a claim is ridiculous since it isn't detectable by empirical means and it is just too incredible. This is an exaggerated example, but it's meant to illustrate that people tend to consider it illogical to believe in claims which are undetectable by empirical means. Believers tend to make god an exemption though. Atheists on the otherhand don't exempt god from science and logic. This is the fundamental difference with atheists and theists when it comes to asking for proof. Atheists consider empirically verifiable evidence as proof. Theists on the otherhand think that personal experience and testimony are adequate proof. When atheists ask for proof of things like god/creation etc. believers will give testimonials or arguments based on feelings. What they don't understand is that the atheist doesn't consider these things proof of god, but rather subjective personal bias. What the atheist is looking for, when asking the question, is evidence backed by science and reason. This why atheists(at least intellectual atheists) don't accept claims like the Garden of Eden or creation accounts. They're not verifiable by science so it is considered to be unreasonable to believe it to be true since it's based on somebody's say so.
Last edited by agnostic soldier; 10-01-2009 at 04:25 PM..
Random House dictionary definition of "evidence" as it applies to a court of law:
...data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include thetestimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects."
I felt I had to correct this statement...The testimony of witnesses is indeed accepted in a court, but those witnesses must be living. Documents, records and objects are also accepted, but they must be verified. We don't even know who the writers of scripture really are...The bible cannot be verified to the point where it would be admissible in a court
Quote:
I understand that it can be very difficult for anyone who rejects their dual nature to accept that when someone has a genuine spiritual experience, TO THEM it is not mere "opinion", it's just as real and just as valid as a genuine physical experience, and in many cases is in fact much more impressive than the mere physical senses can provide.
I would agree if you were talking about dreams. We all experience them, but they are only products of the mind.
Quote:
But you choose to limit yourself to secular methods and tools and the observations of those who use them to tell you what's true and perhaps even what's not true. That's perfectly valid for empirical studies. But when it comes to things of the spirit: wrong method, wrong tools...
Sorry, but I do not believe that any spiritual things exist except in an individuals mind....Much like dreams.
Your post seems to make an interesting point(intentional or unintentional). Theists tend to view personal experiences, feelings and testimonials to be adequate evidence of a divine being. Atheists on the otherhand tend to be empiricists of some sort. It's true that theists aren't all necessarily opposed to science, although they don't consider the question of the existence of god to be a matter of science. Atheists on the otherhand consider it to be a matter of science/logic. This isn't about hoping there is no afterlife, god etc. though, it's about applying logic and science to all claims rather than to all claims except your own. For example, if I said invisible pink rabbits exist, you would probably think that such a claim is ridiculous since it isn't detectable by empirical means and it is just too incredible. This is an exaggerated example, but it's meant to illustrate that people tend to consider it illogical to believe in claims which are undetectable by empirical means. Believers tend to make god an exemption though. Atheists on the otherhand don't exempt god from science and logic. This is the fundamental difference with atheists and theists when it comes to asking for proof. Atheists consider empirically verifiable evidence as proof. Theists on the otherhand think that personal experience and testimony are adequate proof. When atheists ask for proof of things like god/creation etc. believers will give testimonials or arguments based on feelings. What they don't understand is that the atheist doesn't consider these things proof of god, but rather subjective personal bias. What the atheist is looking for, when asking the question, is evidence backed by science and reason. This why atheists(at least intellectual atheists) don't accept claims like the Garden of Eden or creation accounts. They're not verifiable by science so it is considered to be unreasonable to believe it to be true since it's based on somebody's say so.
Thank-you for explaining your position and why you believe as you do.
I'm wondering why you are throwing away personal experiences as a method of discovery. Isn't every discovery known to science a matter of someone having a personal experience of some sort with something?
The existence of God is NOT a matter for science, never was, except possibly in the evolving field of astrophysics. Time after time if you can believe the reports of atheists, science has failed to detect God or even spiritual things. It's just not equipped for such a quest. Reasonable people turn to religion to learn more about God and His ways.
If science had already detected everything there is to know I might agree with you that "it illogical to believe in claims which are undetectable by empirical means." But then there'd be no further need for science or scientists...
Many people who have a firm testimony that God lives do not base that on "feelings" though that could play a part in it. They base their belief in God on actual experiences. To me there's a big difference. In your attempt to validate your godless position, you fail in my opinion to give enough credit to billions of intelligent people over the ages. And don't come back with the numbers card. It seems reasonable, though not absolute, that if a billion intelligent people say they believe God exists because of personal experiences with Him, and a few thousand say He does not exist because their manufactured tools have failed to detect Him, I'd give those billions more credit than atheists commonly do on discussion boards.
Seems the logical thing to do in my opinion...
Is history science? Isn't almost everything we learn, especially about science discoveries "based on somebody's say so"? Unless you were one of the few people involved with the experiment, you are demonstrating faith that they and their peers actually got it right, had reliable tools, and reached valid conclusions; that the person/s reporting the discovery did it accurately, that it was translated correctly if need be, published accurately, and that you interpreted the report correctly. Seems a bit like exploring the er Bible...
Science is ever changing, each discovery subject to the next discovery. With a history of centuries of change and I suppose thousands of theories being debunked, I don't think that I could ever bring myself to have enough faith in such a system as to risk my eternal well-being on it, even if I wasn't positive that there is life after death. (Which I am.)
But I don't think that Religion has ever thrown away God, however He may be culturally labelled, or whatever attributes may be assigned to Him. As for me, I'll put my trust in God rather than constantly changing so often wrong man.
P.S. I just saw a report on Fox News that a skeleton has been found that is a million years older than "Lucy". Apparently it's going to force a "rethink" of the theory of evolution. It seems that maybe humans and apes may have evolved along different lines... Another theory debunked??
Last edited by justamere10; 10-01-2009 at 06:02 PM..
1. I don't agree with your opinion. I for one value both science and religion, I think each is a valid and useful way to discover truths. Many scientists believe in God.
2. A Jesuit priest who is a physicist with a doctorate degree should command just as much respect as any other who doesn't happen to be a Jesuit. The major difference is that another scientist just as well qualified but who does not believe in God is not likely to be interested enough to explore proof of God, whereas the Jesuit is.
And there's that matter of "peer review". My guess is that if the Jesuit scientist is wise and has a choice, those peers would not likely even be Catholics.
Physicist? I don't think so.
Father Spitzer went to Punahou High School in Honolulu, Hawaii, graduating in 1970 (National Honor Society). He received his B.B.A. in Public Accounting and Finance from Gonzaga University in 1974 (Magna *** Laude). He then received his Masters degree in Philosophy from St. Louis University (Magna *** Laude) in 1978, his Masters of Divinity degree (M.Div.) from the Gregorian University in Rome (Summa *** Laude) in 1983, his Masters of Theology degree (Th.M.) in scripture from the Weston School in Cambridge (Summa *** Laude) in 1984, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Catholic University of America (Summa *** Laude) in 1988. His dissertation, under Paul Weiss, is entitled, A Study of Objectively Real Time. Bio
I felt I had to correct this statement...The testimony of witnesses is indeed accepted in a court, but those witnesses must be living. Documents, records and objects are also accepted, but they must be verified. We don't even know who the writers of scripture really are...The bible cannot be verified to the point where it would be admissible in a court
I would agree if you were talking about dreams. We all experience them, but they are only products of the mind.
Sorry, but I do not believe that any spiritual things exist except in an individuals mind....Much like dreams.
I suppose there are billions of living witnesses/testifiers that God exists.
Actually, the Bible is so accepted in American courts of law that most if not all witnesses are required to touch it as they swear an oath to tell the truth. The contents of the books of the Bible, as we all know, are debatable.
Dreams and actual spiritual experiences are two quite different things as those who have experienced both can attest. (Though a particularly vivid dream can contain a message from God.)
Father Spitzer went to Punahou High School in Honolulu, Hawaii, graduating in 1970 (National Honor Society). He received his B.B.A. in Public Accounting and Finance from Gonzaga University in 1974 (Magna *** Laude). He then received his Masters degree in Philosophy from St. Louis University (Magna *** Laude) in 1978, his Masters of Divinity degree (M.Div.) from the Gregorian University in Rome (Summa *** Laude) in 1983, his Masters of Theology degree (Th.M.) in scripture from the Weston School in Cambridge (Summa *** Laude) in 1984, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Catholic University of America (Summa *** Laude) in 1988. His dissertation, under Paul Weiss, is entitled, A Study of Objectively Real Time. Bio
Thank-you for doing the research. I was just going by the article:
"The Honolulu-born Jesuit is the past president of Gonzaga University and is also well-known philosopher and physicist who is involved in bringing science and theology together."
personal experiences are lies of the devil and the demons, if they contradict the Word of God about the Person and work of Jesus the Christ. His Person is YHWH the Word. His work is redemption back, for the glory, which the sons of God of the Adam race lost at the fall of the one prince, Adam -and more glory, for the first man is earthy, of the earth, the second Man is YHWH from heaven.
The devil is real, and he is ready to defend his lies to those he has in his bonds. He transforms himself/shapeshifts into an angel of light, to deceive those who deny the Witness oif the Word of God and the Light of Christ given to every man, so that he may seek God while he has his being intact.
There is no personal experience that can be set above what is written by YHWH in His Word, and as to His Word, Jesus is the Last Word from God. The last book is closed, and there is no more revelation of anything to come, but only fulfillment of that which is already written.
Jesus Christ is YHWH the Creator come in flesh of second creation human being, which flesh was prepared in the womb of a virgin for YHWH the Word to dress Himself in, as second creation Man, the brother to Adam, and the legal Kinsman/Redeemer of the race of Adam and of the world Adam sold into sin and corruption.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
