Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I Didn't Say God Failed, I Said "so Far"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on October 11, 2002 19:17:35 UTC

Hi Harv,

" I don't see it as God's immediate objective to make sure everyone believes 'truth'. "

That is an obvious fact. Being as we are always seeking for immediate results, sometimes it's hard to understand the ways of an Eternal Being.

" I think Sam can come to see evolution as true even if it does conflict with his religious views. "

I agree, which is why I said it's easier to turn him into an atheist. It happens in 90% of the cases, and that is another obvious fact.

" I had trouble with evolution as a teenager since I couldn't see how God could be involved in a natural process that doesn't apparently need him. "

Isn't that funny? I always had, and still have trouble with evolution because I can't see how God can be excluded from a process that obviously needs him. So I do have some sympathy for the creationist cause, my only difference with them is I don't think they're questioning evolution for the right motives.

" First you must be led to conflict before you can find a resolution to conflict (movies are based on this stuff). "

Indeed, but the same conflict can be resolved in multiple ways.

1) The Bible is completely true.
2) The Bible should be defended.
3) Evolution contradicts the Bible.
4) Something in the evidence of evolution must be false.
5) I don't know enough about evolutionary evidence to decide (4).
6) There is a website with people having science degrees who believe like me and who hold (4).
7) Therefore I believe the people in (6) are true - or are to be my help.
8) I will defend the Bible (2) and use (7) to do this. I will link many of my arguments with (7).
9) I win when I accomplish this task.

Of course, this (1)-(9) is entirely faulty reasoning.

I have no idea why, and I'm not kidding. Where exactly is the error in logic? (we're talking algorithms here so logic is the only rule, right?) For instance, where is the logical proof that "the Bible is completely true" is false? Worse, what stands in your way of accepting (1) as an axiom?

Truth... what a stinking business. The problem with Sam's algorithm is not that it is wrong, the problem is that, in my very own personal opinion, it sucks.

Gotta go to a meeting now, that should get you thinking.



Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins