Do you believe in God?

[YoursTrue]

Well, science is not absolute. So if you are referring to absolute knowledge about the beginning of the universe using science as your epistemology, it's true that we don't have absolute knowledge of "this".

If we don't know whether the universe had a beginning, we don't really know anything except that which we know. For instance, I know when I leave the apartment, I'm not in my apartment.

 

[firedragon]

If we don't know whether the universe had a beginning, we don't really know anything except that which we know. For instance, I know when I leave the apartment, I'm not in my apartment.

Depends on your method or source of knowledge. Are you speaking from a scientific perspective or not? If so, I have already answered this. Science does not work with absolute truths so yes. From that perspective we don't know absolutely.

 

[YoursTrue]

Depends on your method or source of knowledge. Are you speaking from a scientific perspective or not? If so, I have already answered this. Science does not work with absolute truths so yes. From that perspective we don't know absolutely.

I'm speaking from -- common sense. The offerings of scientific minds that go from here to there as if they can figure abstruse things out like maybe the universe came from nothing, maybe it didn't, is like going to the layers of one's brain and push around thought cells. In other words, let them play, but it has no truthful consequence or realistic thinking. It's like a game to some.

 

[firedragon]

I'm speaking from -- common sense.

Actually you are not. You are using a scientific approach.

If it's common sense, you should use logical reasoning. Rationalism, phenomenology, natural theology. You can't just make a statement like that like a hand wave. Having a philosophical argument well reasoned out using a good methodology is called epistemic responsibility. Just waving it off without is irresponsible.

Cheers.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually you are not. You are using a scientific approach.

If it's common sense, you should use logical reasoning. Rationalism, phenomenology, natural theology. You can't just make a statement like that like a hand wave. Having a philosophical argument well reasoned out using a good methodology is called epistemic responsibility. Just waving it off without is irresponsible.

Cheers.

I guess whatever you say must be true, right? I'm still in the apartment, at my computer, not floating in midair, my chair is on the floor and I'm happy to say it's not floating up to the ceiling. That's it for me. Take care.

 

[LuisDantas]

... is it so difficult or so rare to realize that fairly self-evident facts that:

1. God-beliefs are both artificial and fragile; and

2. Even if they were not, they would still be very unsuitable as cornerstones of anything resembling a functional, constructive, respectable religion?

I swear, sometimes I feel like there can't be anyone above twelve actually believing that god-beliefs are all that important.

 

[YoursTrue]

... is it so difficult or so rare to realize that fairly self-evident facts that:

1. God-beliefs are both artificial and fragile; and

2. Even if they were not, they would still be very unsuitable as cornerstones of anything resembling a functional, constructive, respectable religion?

I swear, sometimes I feel like there can't be anyone above twelve actually believing that god-beliefs are all that important.The

The Bible convinced me that it is not artificial and fragile.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You said "We don't actually know this." I believe "we" is too inclusive.

Is there anyone who knows this? Please raise your hand.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Well, science is not absolute. So if you are referring to absolute knowledge about the beginning of the universe using science as your epistemology, it's true that we don't have absolute knowledge of "this".

Currently there is no knowledge at all. Just faith based belief. Your OP was about belief based on reason and logic.

 

[firedragon]

I guess whatever you say must be true, right? I'm still in the apartment, at my computer, not floating in midair, my chair is on the floor and I'm happy to say it's not floating up to the ceiling. That's it for me. Take care.

Yep. TC.

 

[firedragon]

Currently there is no knowledge at all. Just faith based belief. Your OP was about belief based on reason and logic.

What's the point?

 

[metis]

The problem I have with the ToE is that there are no substantial facts showing the transition, for one thing, from fish to land dwellers, and yes, that includes the ideas about Tiktaalik as if somehow fish developed air breathing lungs and legs, scientists determining Tiktaalik is the answer.

It has been well established that life forms have evolved, which stands to plain old common sense because all material objects tend to change over time, and genes and dna are material objects. Sure, we don't have all the answers and we never will as new answers tend to lead to new questions. But the general pattern of change over time is quite clear.

Because for one thing, those who do cannot find any fish that have developed legs and air-breathing lungs.

We don't have all the answers to some questions about Jesus, so does that mean Jesus never existed?

 

[firedragon]

It has been well established that life forms have evolved

Explain to me. How does that disprove a creator exists?

 

[metis]

Explain to me. How does that disprove a creator exists?

I never said nor implied it does.

 

[firedragon]

I never said nor implied it does.

Aight then. I misunderstood you. Sorry.

 

[Muffled]

My parents were atheists. The difference is in the second - I found grounding in truth in God. The experiences I had were followed by a thread of logic I could accept: If there is a God, then God is loving or not If God is loving there has to be an explanation for suffering and evil. And so forth.

In the discussion of nurture vs nature there is an absence of figuring how much comes from a previous life. As far as I know there isn't a religious gene.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What's the point?

I didn't refer to science as absolute knowledge. You seemed to imply there is some kind of other (non-scientific) knowledge about the beginning of the universe.

 

[firedragon]

You seemed to imply there is some kind of other (non-scientific) knowledge about the beginning of the universe.

Yes. One could use logic, reason, phenomenology, etc.

 

[YoursTrue]

It has been well established that life forms have evolved, which stands to plain old common sense because all material objects tend to change over time, and genes and dna are material objects. Sure, we don't have all the answers and we never will as new answers tend to lead to new questions. But the general pattern of change over time is quite clear.



We don't have all the answers to some questions about Jesus, so does that mean Jesus never existed?

I understand many think all life forms have evolved, however I no longer believe that way. One reason that comes to mind is the fantastic ability of birds to make their nests. That's just one of so many.
Insofar as all the answers to some questions about Jesus, as you well know, some do actually believe that he never existed. And I'm not just speaking of archaeologists...

 

[YoursTrue]

It has been well established that life forms have evolved, which stands to plain old common sense because all material objects tend to change over time, and genes and dna are material objects. Sure, we don't have all the answers and we never will as new answers tend to lead to new questions. But the general pattern of change over time is quite clear.



We don't have all the answers to some questions about Jesus, so does that mean Jesus never existed?

There actually is no evidence that fish developed legs by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest." The more I think about it, the more interesting animals and their physiology is, but right now I am not in a position to learn more about frogs, etc. That is another reason why I believe only man has the inclination to wonder and think about these things. Including the possibility of eternal life. Religion has done a job on mankind. Man's desire to know is not because his brain is better, larger, etc. But because the idea of learning and living forever is something instilled in us. No matter that many use their intellect to figure there either is no God or that whatever is out there cannot be understood or relied upon, I have found and believe the Bible to be a basic and true source of wisdom and guidance.