Many fail to realize that both sides of the materialistic and creation debates share the same evidence, since we share the same reality. We don’t live in different places experiencing things in different universes, so the evidence doesn’t separate us; the explanation of the evidence does.
Many who say there is no evidence for God view evidence as if the only explanation narratives attached to the universe matter that show they are correct, but the same evidence is there for all, so they refuse to acknowledge any narrative or explanation that doesn’t agree with them.
That is their huge circular claim, but they refuse to move off of it because, as soon as they do, they lose one of their favorite talking points: there is no evidence for God.
Truth is never changed by human opinion; it is changed only by reality. Our opinions about reality do not change reality, but they do change our perceptions of it; when that happens, we reveal the kind of people we really are as we change to accumulate and accommodate our opinions.
Science is about making observations and drawing conclusions from them.
As a religious person, you're working backwards. You've already formed a conclusion and search for evidence to support it. That's flawed logically.
You claim scientists don't accept views that don't agree with them. That's false; new information challenging current theories are integral and common aspects of science. The differing views must be based in facts and reason; this is where creationism repeatedly fails.
@vivify
Creationism fails before it even gets started. Creation of everything ex nihilo because a magical fantasy being utters some power words is Harry Potterism. One cannot view this as an explanation of how things came to be. One can only view it as a moral allegory: it's Hänsel und Gretl with a bigger witch. And we hope it is a White Witch, instead of an evil one.
@vivify saidYes, it is called 'the scientific method' and it helped bring us out of the dark ages.
Science is about making observations and drawing conclusions from them.
As a religious person, you're working backwards. You've already formed a conclusion and search for evidence to support it. That's flawed logically.
You claim scientists don't accept views that don't agree with them. That's false; new information challenging current theories are integral and comm ...[text shortened]... The differing views must be based in facts and reason; this is where creationism repeatedly fails.
@moonbus saidAnd yet, there is the big bang theory. Yet too many scientists reject this seemingly because of its tenuous connection to the tale of Creation.
@vivify
Creationism fails before it even gets started. Creation of everything ex nihilo because a magical fantasy being utters some power words is Harry Potterism. One cannot view this as an explanation of how things came to be. One can only view it as a moral allegory: it's Hänsel und Gretl with a bigger witch. And we hope it is a White Witch, instead of an evil one.
I still accept this as the most logical start to our universe. I still believe that the steady state theory is too old and broken and can't describe the universe we see today.
That it (the 'BBT' ) has obvious parallels to Creation (only earliest Creation -- "Let there be Light" ) is a side bonus only.
@KellyJay saidI see absolutely zero problem with this. I hear this all the time, religion-ists trying to bend reality to make up evidence for God. There IS NO evidence for God. There cannot be evidence for God. God is a deity of faith who has granted men Free Will. Free Will to believe in him or not to believe in him. To have faith or not to have faith. The line of distinction is clear, and it is our own choice. For God to then turn around and leave traces or evidence of himself laying around is stupid in the extreme. We cannot have him 'come down' and prove himself without abolishing Free Will. If God were A FACT, then who would reject that? Would that be true faith? The only way God can maintain a human Free Will choice in the matter and to make faith valuable and available is to leave no trace of his existence, which is what we have today. The few traces that exist today (holy texts and other artifacts) are easily explained away. All religions have holy texts. All religions have artifacts. Which religion is true boils down to human opinion. In the headspace of humanity, no religion is A FACT or the sole bastion of TRUTH. This is what faith is about. Faith is the ONLY standard by which we are judged. It cannot be tainted or manufactured. It can only be the result of Free Will.
Many fail to realize that both sides of the materialistic and creation debates share the same evidence, since we share the same reality. We don’t live in different places experiencing things in different universes, so the evidence doesn’t separate us; the explanation of the evidence does.
Many who say there is no evidence for God view evidence as if the only explanation ...[text shortened]... we reveal the kind of people we really are as we change to accumulate and accommodate our opinions.
@KellyJay saidHow convenient that this babble ( "we reveal the kind of people we really are" ) only functions as your litmus test of who is acceptable to you and who is not. This is not what Jesus came to teach us. As you may recall he was not as the Pharisees are, he did not accept the law ONLY to judge others and exalt ourselves as blameless.
Truth is never changed by human opinion; it is changed only by reality. Our opinions about reality do not change reality, but they do change our perceptions of it; when that happens, we reveal the kind of people we really are as we change to accumulate and accommodate our opinions.
These are the kinds of notions that Calvin pushed. But Christianity is a celebration, not an excuse for us to exclude and vilify others.
@Suzianne saidreligion-ists trying to bend reality to make up evidence for God.
I see absolutely zero problem with this. I hear this all the time, religion-ists trying to bend reality to make up evidence for God. There IS NO evidence for God. There cannot be evidence for God. God is a deity of faith who has granted men Free Will. Free Will to believe in him or not to believe in him. To have faith or not to have faith. The line of distinction is c ...[text shortened]... which we are judged. It cannot be tainted or manufactured. It can only be the result of Free Will.
They also bend the reality of the context of Scriptures, to make up evidence that their own personal will, is the same will as God's will.
Abortion is one good example.
@KingDavid403 saidIndeed.
religion-ists trying to bend reality to make up evidence for God.
They also bend the reality of the context of Scriptures, to make up evidence that their own personal will, is the same will as God's will.
Abortion is one good example.
Jesus would indeed call them modern-day Pharisees. Hypocrites.
@Suzianne saidPeople who need evidence to believe in God have no faith. That is the salient point.
I see absolutely zero problem with this. I hear this all the time, religion-ists trying to bend reality to make up evidence for God. There IS NO evidence for God. There cannot be evidence for God. God is a deity of faith who has granted men Free Will. Free Will to believe in him or not to believe in him. To have faith or not to have faith. The line of distinction is c ...[text shortened]... which we are judged. It cannot be tainted or manufactured. It can only be the result of Free Will.
@Suzianne saidMy contention is that how the universe got started is a non-issue. It does not matter how the universe got started, and knowing how it got started, if it got started, has no ethical significance.
And yet, there is the big bang theory. Yet too many scientists reject this seemingly because of its tenuous connection to the tale of Creation.
I still accept this as the most logical start to our universe. I still believe that the steady state theory is too old and broken and can't describe the universe we see today.
That it (the 'BBT' ) has obvious parallels to Creation (only earliest Creation -- "Let there be Light" ) is a side bonus only.
But, for those who insist on there having been a starter, any mindless igniter would suffice. A match can start a fire bigger than itself, and it is consumed by the fire it started, leaving no trace (evidence) of itself behind. A trigger releases more energy than the trigger itself. No intelligence required.
Have you heard of the Casimir Effect? Google it, if not. Particle-pairs pop into existence spontaneously in empty space. That is sufficient 'evidence' for me to suppose that how the universe got started does not require any supernatural power to explain it. Spontaneously appearing particle-pairs already contain enough existence to qualify as a mindless igniter/trigger.