Evidence means nothing with certain things

[SkepticThinker]

Science views limits understanding of life’s mysteries

Such as?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What’s wrong with the Big Bang?

It’s evidence for the universe having a beginning, which is evidence for a Creator.
That’s why atheists usually don’t like discussing it.

The Big Bang evidence led Robert Jastrow, a famous astronomer and planetary physicist, to accept that there might be an intelligence behind the order of things.

How and why do you consider evidence that the universe had a beginning as evidence for a "creator?" How do the two connect?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I’ve found just the opposite. Along with avoiding the evidence, ie., the facts, that have been discovered in the Cambrian Explosion, they prefer to avoid discussing the origin of the energy needed for the BB.

“We don’t know.” Oh yeah, that’s right. That, in fact, is the only honest answer for atheists. Etiology, practically in any field, does not support atheism.

Because the "Cambrian explosion" has been explained to you and discussed with you ad nauseum at this point. It is not evidence against evolution.

Saying "I don't know" when we don't know, is the most honest answer anyone can give.

 

[Kfox]

Whether the awareness of something is the same as that something in itself independent of the awareness?

No they are not the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because the "Cambrian explosion" has been explained to you and discussed with you ad nauseum at this point. It is not evidence against evolution.

Saying "I don't know" when we don't know, is the most honest answer anyone can give.

Worse yet most if not all of his claims about the Cambrian explosion have been repeatedly refuted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Worse yet most if not all of his claims about the Cambrian explosion have been repeatedly refuted.

Over and over and over and over ...

And yet it's still brought up every month or so, as if it's some kind of fresh argument that wasn't refuted decades ago.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A lot of people on here like to point out that spiritual people on here don’t have any evidence. But let me remind you that all the scientific things you believe because of evidence, your blindly believing this as well. (ie. Big Bang, Abiogenesis & evolution). Looks like we’re all in the same boat. Hahahaha.

Welp...

Someone in RF suggested atheists believe there is no evidence for God just a day or two back, and I disputed that. There is evidence for God. Gods, even.

And science doesn't give us 'the truth' in any complete sense. It gives us a process for sorting through and expanding knowledge. Which is then further built on and expanded.

Pretty much everything science 'says' will be proven wrong, or refined, or further contextualised, or measured more granually.

The question isn't 'do spiritual people have evidence' so much as how do they process it, do they think it matters, and what is the falsifiable hypothesis they're testing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A lot of people on here like to point out that spiritual people on here don’t have any evidence. But let me remind you that all the scientific things you believe because of evidence, your blindly believing this as well. (ie. Big Bang, Abiogenesis & evolution). Looks like we’re all in the same boat. Hahahaha.

Accepting things based on evidence is the very opposite of "blindly believing".

 

[Kfox]

A lot of people on here like to point out that spiritual people on here don’t have any evidence. But let me remind you that all the scientific things you believe because of evidence, your blindly believing this as well. (ie. Big Bang, Abiogenesis & evolution). Looks like we’re all in the same boat. Hahahaha.

Whether the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, or evolution is true or not, it has no effect on my life today; I can accept them or not and continue living my life as I please. Can the same be said about religion? If not, we are NOT in the same boat.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Whether the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, or evolution is true or not, it has no effect on my life today; I can accept them or not and continue living my life as I please. Can the same be said about religion? If not, we are NOT in the same boat.

Well, that is true about any worldview that has morality as a part of it and not just religion.
And in effect for some non-religious systems you get that they claim objective authority just as some religious.

 

[Kfox]

Well, that is true about any worldview that has morality as a part of it and not just religion.
And in effect for some non-religious systems you get that they claim objective authority just as some religious.

I don’t think everybody has a worldview. It is my understanding a worldview is something mostly associated with religion; that if you are not religious, you likely will not have a worldview.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don’t think everybody has a worldview. It is my understanding a worldview is something mostly associated with religion; that if you are not religious, you likely will not have a worldview.

So you have no idea what the universe/world/reality is. If it is natural or what ever? What truth, reason, logic and so on are? How morality, rights freedom, liberty and a good life work? What happens when we die?
For all of general categories you have no beliefs or opinions about those?

Now I do get you, because I am from a different culture and the literal translation of virkelighedsopfattelse is understanding of reality, but I use the word worldview in the general sense of how a given person understand the world(reality).

 

[Kfox]

So you have no idea what the universe/world/reality is. If it is natural or what ever? What truth, reason, logic and so on are? How morality, rights freedom, liberty and a good life work? What happens when we die?
For all of general categories you have no beliefs or opinions about those?

Of course I have opinions on all of those issues. But how does having opinions concerning specific questions equate to a world view? Better yet; assuming you have a world view, please describe it to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course I have opinions on all of those issues. But how does having opinions concerning specific questions equate to a world view? Better yet; assuming you have a world view, please describe it to me.

I am a neutralist when it comes to what the world is as such and thus not neither a naturalist nor a supernaturalist.
As for truth, proof and evidence I am a cognitive relativist and in effect pragmatic.
As for the actual methodology for knowledge I am a general and strong skeptic.
As for the meaning of life and morality I am an anti-realist and subjectivist.
As for the everyday politics I am a Scandinavian social democrat.

That is the general parts of how I view the world including the humans in it.

 

[Kfox]

I am a neutralist when it comes to what the world is as such and thus not neither a naturalist nor a supernaturalist.
As for truth, proof and evidence I am a cognitive relativist and in effect pragmatic.
As for the actual methodology for knowledge I am a general and strong skeptic.
As for the meaning of life and morality I am an anti-realist and subjectivist.
As for the everyday politics I am a Scandinavian social democrat.

That is the general parts of how I view the world including the humans in it.

So your world view is a million different things you have opinions on, and in order to describe your worldview, you have to list a million different things? A Theist friend of mine said a Christian worldview is a person who views the world through the lens of the Bible, a Muslim world view views the world through the lens of the Koran, etc. Since I have no book I consider 100% right, 0% wrong, I have no world view.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So your world view is a million different things you have opinions on, and in order to describe your worldview, you have to list a million different things? A Theist friend of mine said a Christian worldview is a person who views the world through the lens of the Bible, a Muslim world view views the world through the lens of the Koran, etc. Since I have no book I consider 100% right, 0% wrong, I have no world view.

So by your logic since I don't use only one book, it is irrelevant that I hold general view that inform how I understand the world, because they are only general if derived from one book.
So a Christian who use the Bible, other books on logic and yet other books on science don't have a worldview and is not really a Christian, is that it?

 

[Kfox]

So by your logic since I don't use only one book, it is irrelevant that I hold general view that inform how I understand the world, because they are only general if derived from one book.

One source.

So a Christian who use the Bible, other books on logic and yet other books on science don't have a worldview and is not really a Christian, is that it?

If you get your views from lots of books, to include the Bible, yes; that is not a Christian world view.