sleeper;1792445 wrote:So what you are essentially saying is science and logic won't change your beliefs. You are also calling theories backed and tested by the scientific method as "faith".

In other words, describing you as delusional would be putting it nicely.

jmog;1792464 wrote:Sleeper, the Scientific Method is amazing at determining how the universe works. However, the Scientific Method REQUIRES direct observation as one of its key components look at the pictogram here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


We can use what we KNOW about the current/observable universe to predict future and past events, but nothing in our scientific theories about how the universe began/evolved has to do with the Scientific Method. One can not observe something that happened before any of us were around.

We can hypothesize, we can use information about what we can dig out of the ground, test them based on current known information about the universe. However, one thing is true. When we use science to predict something, whether in the past (Big Bang, Evolution, what the Earth was like 3 billion years ago, etc) or in the future (planet positions in future, projectile motion calculations, climate change, etc) the further away from the present that we are the less accurate our projections.

Think of the weather. They are fairly accurate on a 3-5 day time frame, but terrible past about 10 days, and we have already seen how terrible climate models have been at predicting things out decades.

Predicting what happened in the past, before written history, is the same way if using scientific means of prediction.

Science is amazing at determining how the world/universe operates right now. It is not a great prediction tool (although it is the best we have).

sleeper;1792467 wrote:Science will continue to work towards the truth; religion will continue to have scholars spend 1,000 of years trying to figure out the Bible, a book that is in reality a piece of fiction.

I'll take the former every day of the week. Time to grow up.

sleeper;1792455 wrote:You're delusional. Please seek professional help.

O-Trap;1792378 wrote: Damn it, Sleeper. I had hoped to avoid getting into these discussions on here. Nobody's mind is ever changed, and they're a time-suck.

sleeper;1792445 wrote:So what you are essentially saying is science and logic won't change your beliefs. You are also calling theories backed and tested by the scientific method as "faith".

In other words, describing you as delusional would be putting it nicely.

O-Trap;1792378 wrote:I find it hard to believe that someone who touts logic would call a mathematical law "obtuse" or "vague." Aren't those the antithesis of math, for the most part?

The "simply" truth is that neither a sensate nor an ideational worldview is anything new. Neither is either one inherently more intellectually honest. Pitirim Sorokin did a good study on these throughout history. Both require some assumptions, sure, but neither is necessarily entirely faith-based (though both could be, depending on the person holding it). A philosophical foundation for a worldview is not the same as a fanciful or faith-based one. The former requires proper application of logical principles.



I'm not disputing that at all. This is why it takes more than an unpacked nugget able to be regurgitated in a 15 minute post. I just suggested that those were reasons to support the foundation of any ideational worldview. The process is more like building a structure than just grabbing a few facts here and there and throwing them into a milieu of "supports" or "defeaters."

All that to say that I'm not saying that the two things I mentioned were supports for the deity of the Judeo-Christian Bible. Merely that in order to arrive at the notion that there is any validity to the things you've mentioned, you first have to see sufficient grounds for a creator at all. Otherwise the rest is moot.



I'm not sure how you would imagine this taking place, to be fair, though I'm perfectly okay with study into it. To quote St. Augustine, "We must show our scriptures not to be in conflict with whatever our critics can demonstrate about the nature of things from reliable sources." That is to say that I think it's good to use what we can know about the world through the use of our sensory faculties to shape our worldview. Ideational worldviews don't reject the sensate. They just don't exclude all else.



There are actually a fair number of theologians who aren't believers themselves. Moreover, there are more than a few who became believers through their study, and not the other way around. I'd hardly call that biased, but I WOULD say that they'd likely be a good source for why a belief exists at all.

As for wanting to find some scholars you can take the word of, I don't think that would even satisfy you. That's saying, essentially, that you're just going to adopt someone's position without contemplation because you think of them as an expert. You seem like you're actually more thoughtful than that.



I would suggest that reality requires something supernatural, if for no other reason than the refusal to accept that the natural is here "just because."



Roundabout the same time the irreligious grow up and accept that while it has been used that way in recent history, there's little evidence to demonstrate the motives for any origins whatsoever.

Damn it, Sleeper. I had hoped to avoid getting into these discussions on here. Nobody's mind is ever changed, and they're a time-suck.

ernest_t_bass;1792491 wrote:

Mulva;1792521 wrote:4.54 +- .05 is 4.49 to 4.59, not 4.04 to 5.04.

OSH;1792490 wrote:Theories backed and tested by scientific method? How much do these theories continue to change? I get it, it's a theory...they can change. So, that's where science CANNOT "prove" anything about the age of the earth OR creation of life.

I hate quoting random websites, but look at the amount of "theories" on age of the earth: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html (I'm sure there are better websites that give these theories too, and more).

Same goes for the creation of life. Time and time again someone has the "proof" or "fact" on how life was created. Then...a few years later it changes again.

For people who rate science above everything else, I simply cannot understand why someone would actually hold onto the "fact" that the age of the earth is "4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old." Really? Plus or minus .05 billion years old? That's a variation of 50,000,000 years! So, the "age" could be a range of 5.04 billion to 4.04 billion years old. That's a pretty big range to actually believe -- and a massive variation to give.

How can science "prove" the age of the earth? A variance of 50,000,000 years isn't "proof." How can science "prove" the creation of life? They can't, no one was there. So...in essence, it cannot be proven. That's logic to me. No one was there. Logic tells me that since no one was there, they cannot prove it...especially with as many changes and theories continue to arise. I'll wait a year, I'm sure it'll change again.

Apple;1792552 wrote:Question for sleeper...

Are you a climate change believer or a client change denier?

Apple;1792552 wrote:Question for sleeper...

Are you a climate change believer or a client change denier?

SportsAndLady;1792590 wrote:There's still climate change deniers?

sleeper;1792542 wrote:That's the beauty of science. It takes a lot of data, almost an overwhelmingly amount, to 'prove' anything. A lot of science is based on taking a current well supported belief and trying to find ways to tear that theory down. Each attempt at failure strengthens the theory as well as anything that can be added to support that theory as valid.

It's pretty clear you don't like the idea of science or think its not consistent because things can change as time goes on. Why isn't that preferred to a book that never changes and simply states things as is? New information, new technology, new tests, new evidence comes up all the time that changes the outlook on the world; The bible stays static and never changes. I think we will at some point have a better understanding of when the Earth formed, how it formed, etc. as time goes on. It's humble to admit you don't know something and intelligent to work towards finding the answer. I don't know how you 'prove' it but you can build case towards specific ideas and PROVIDE EVIDENCE to support your conclusion.

We can be thankful that a decent chunk of society prefers to explore, learn and grow instead of just stating "God did it". How terrible!

SportsAndLady;1792590 wrote:There's still climate change deniers?

That's actually not "clear" at all. I support all kinds of aspects of science. I just have doubt in ANY science trying to "prove" the age of the earth and how life came to exist. Other than that, I don't deny science any legitimacy.

It's actually even more humbling to admit that we don't and won't have all the answers. It's actually more arrogant to think that we can find out all the answers and we can "prove" everything.

QuakerOats;1792632 wrote:No, but there are millions of highly intelligent people who know that climate changes are not caused by humans.

Automatik;1792633 wrote:lol

Apple;1792648 wrote:For me the evidence for climate change is found in the melting of glaciers.

There are some "believers" who claim that the glaciers of today, such as those in Alaska, are melting away because of actions caused by man.

However, for whatever reason or motivation they may have, these same "believers" can never seem to explain why the glaciers melting today are any different than the melting of glaciers on Earth that happened well before man was around.