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 see you continue to be quite serious about flushing out the answer for why things are not perfect when God is believed by some to be perfect. I'm beginning to wonder if this question is merely an intellectual academic one, or are you personally suffering from some of life's challenges and feeling a reason is called for?
Do please explain if you don't mind.
Of course I have answered you question before as have many others doing so again in this thread. Seems like you are asking why 1+1=2 if A + B doesn't. Sure seems to me in any case, the fact there is no good answer or explanation is yet another bit of evidence there is no god in the first place.
What exactly are you saying I can't verify. Are you suggesting that we are uncreated, that everything that exists is uncreated? If so, by what rationale do you support such a notion? Science is the way we validate and verify existing attributes. Are you suggesting that science has NOT verified that the laws and processes by which everything exists are Omnipresent and ubiquitous? I am confused.
Everything that exists was created. Yes. If this defacto means created by God, and if that's the rationale you find good enough for you, then okay. Again duly noted, but that sort of rationale is simply not good enough for the many millions of other people who need a good deal more in the way of facts, reason and logic to justify such a conclusion.
I think that's what is being "suggested." And retold to you so many countless times already, I don't know why I do so again...
It's an exercise in futility to use science to explain the spiritual and spirituality to explain the scientific. I'm comfortable with both domains and see no inherent conflict.
Speaking of accusations isn't that the entire gist of this thread and speaking of strawmen isn't defining Divinity in such a narrow interpretation (personal and intelligent designer) a construct meant for easy toppling by the scientific method?
You see no inherent conflict between both domains? Though I have seen many a person try to fit a square peg into a round hole, suggesting no inherent conflict between these domains is like suggesting there is no inherent conflict between astronomy and astrology. Right. Both involve the stars, but really?
I wonder if you would feel the same way after reading a little history about this non-"inherent conflict."
"A Brief History of Creation: Science and the Search for the Origin of Life," by Bill Mesler & H. James Cleaves II
More prima facie evidence that y'all only recognize God as the manifestations of God found in ancient writings and Religious texts.
Build that straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Only the known to be nonexistent metaphorical and allegorical Deities of Religion & the Mythological Creatures.
Even though it is proved over and over again that "G-O-D" is not limited in definition and meaning to just that...and the appellation can meritoriously be bestowed much more broadly...you still dishonestly redact and excise the definitions and meaning that you know crushes your argument.
Not that it isn't bogus from the get-go...an Argument from Ignorance, illogically drawing a conclusion off of a flawed "no evidence" premise.
You see no inherent conflict between both domains? Though I have seen many a person try to fit a square peg into a round hole, suggesting no inherent conflict between these domains is like suggesting there is no inherent conflict between astronomy and astrology. Right. Both involve the stars, but really?
I wonder if you would feel the same way after reading a little history about this non-"inherent conflict."
"A Brief History of Creation: Science and the Search for the Origin of Life," by Bill Mesler & H. James Cleaves II
That's because some insist one domain is applicable to or negates the other, and that's a two-way street. There's dogma on both sides. Let me be more clear: Science deals with the material and spirituality deals with the immaterial.
"If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described."
That fact that you are an adult educator, my statement got truncated, and you answered in that manor ... basically sums it all up.
We can't address all beliefs because we start to see that believing in some thing is far more reliable than denying every single thing people say and its is far more reliable than disallowing all lines of logic. The latter means we have to start omitting some logic and intentionally have to start using politics tactics.
Just because theist act the fools doesn't mean we have to. And people sitting around and letting it happen is when people get hurt.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 04-09-2021 at 04:53 PM..
You see no inherent conflict between both domains? Though I have seen many a person try to fit a square peg into a round hole, suggesting no inherent conflict between these domains is like suggesting there is no inherent conflict between astronomy and astrology. Right. Both involve the stars, but really?
I wonder if you would feel the same way after reading a little history about this non-"inherent conflict."
"A Brief History of Creation: Science and the Search for the Origin of Life," by Bill Mesler & H. James Cleaves II
no, there is no conflict between the domains. Its people that have the problem. If people use science to form a belief they fit perfectly together.
When people disallow us to use science and align a belief to what science studies is when the domains do not coexist together. An, it seems, both sides have people that will do it. The real question is who is buying into it.
That's because some insist one domain is applicable to or negates the other, and that's a two-way street. There's dogma on both sides. Let me be more clear: Science deals with the material and spirituality deals with the immaterial.
"If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described."
Bingo, your first few words. "Some people ..."
Some people can not allow people to form a belief based on the science data. Some theist and atheist really need the two to be kept separated. If we use science, a magical deity and the claim there are no god or gods of any type start to look foolishly less reliable.
Ha! And never mind the footling and irrelevant responses above . Again it's trying make the questioners define the god. Let the god -claimant define what they mean and then try to prove it. It's not the job of others to define 'their "god" for them, nor to provide the evidence..
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.
And never mind the footling and irrelevant responses above 
. Again it's trying make the questioners define the god. Let the god -claimant define what they mean and then try to prove it. It's not the job of others to define 'their "god" for them, nor to provide the evidence..
