Why to people trust scientists? You know it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creationism?

Question

Anyone can logically deduce that man's sinful nature was NOT a result of natural selection but from eating a magic fruit after heeding the words of a talking snake. Case closed.

Answer 1

You cannot prove that God doesn’t exist; therefore, atheism is based on faith.



Response:
Often theists will try to place atheism and theism on the same plane by arguing that while theists cannot prove that god exists, atheists also cannot prove that god does not exist. This is used as a basis for arguing that there is no objective means for determining which is preferable because neither has a logical or empirical advantage over the other. Thus, the only reason for going with one or the other is faith and then, presumably, the theist will argue that their faith is somehow better than the atheist’s faith.

This claim relies upon the erroneous assumption that all propositions are created equal and, because some cannot be conclusively proven, then therefore none can be conclusively disproven.

Sponsored Links
'The God Theory'
Top-rated bestseller on the reality of God by an astrophysicist
www.thegodtheory.com

Does Jesus really matter?
How is he relevant to your life? Bookmark this website
www.y-Jesus.com

How Well Do You Know God?
Take this test to find out quick.
www.GodTest.com
So, it is argued, the proposition “God exists” cannot be disproven.
But not all propositions are created equal. It is true that some cannot be disproven — for example, the claim “a black swan exists” cannot be disproven. To do so would require examining every spot in the universe to make sure that such a swan did not exist, and that simply isn’t possible.

Other propositions, however, can be disproven — and conclusively. There are two ways to do this. The first is to see if the proposition leads to a logical contradiction; if so, then the proposition must be false. Examples of this would be “a married bachelor exists” or “a square circle exists.” Both of these propositions entail logical contradictions — pointing this out is the same as disproving them.

If someone claims the existence of a god, the existence of which entails logical contradictions, then that god can be disproven the same way. Many atheological arguments do exactly that — for example they argue that an omnipotent and omniscient god cannot exist because those qualities lead to logical contradictions.

The second way to disprove a proposition is a bit more complicated. Consider the following two propositions:

1. Our solar system has a tenth planet.
2. Our solar system has a tenth planet with a mass of X and an orbit of Y.
Both propositions can be proven, but there is a difference when it comes to disproving them. The first could be disproven if someone were to examine all of the space between the sun and the outer limits of our solar system and found no new planets — but such a process is beyond our technology. So, for all practical purposes, it is not disprovable.

The second proposition, however, is disprovable with current technology. Knowing the specific information of mass and orbit, we can devise tests to determine if such an object exists — in other words, the claim is testable. If the tests repeatedly fail, then we can reasonably conclude that the object does not exist. For all intents and purposes, the proposition it disproven. This would not mean that no tenth planet exists. Instead, it means that this particular tenth planet, with this mass and this orbit, does not exist.

Similarly, when a god is defined adequately, it may be possible to construct empirical or logical tests to see if it exists. We can look, for example, at the expected effects which such a god might have on nature or humanity. If we fail to find those effects, then a god with that set of characteristics does not exist. Some other god with some other set of characteristics may exist, but this one has been disproven.

One example of this would be the Argument from Evil, an atheological argument which proposes to prove that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot exist alongside a world like ours which has so much evil in it. If successful, such an argument would not disprove the existence of some other god; it would instead merely disprove the existence of any gods with a particular set of characteristics.

Obviously disproving a god requires an adequate description of what it is and what characteristics it has in order to determine either if there is a logical contradiction or if any testable implications hold true. Without a substantive explanation of just what this god is, how can there be a substantive claim that this god is? In order to reasonably claim that this god matters, the believer must have substantive information regarding its nature and characteristics; otherwise, there is no reason for anyone to care.

Claiming that atheists “cannot prove that God does not exist” often relies upon the misunderstanding that atheists claim “God does not exist” and should prove this. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “God exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer. If the believer is unable to provide good reason to accept the existence of their god, it is unreasonable to expect the atheist to construct a disproof of it — or even care much about the claim in the first place.

Answer 2

Indeed! I think I detect a bit of sarcasm in your remark. It is perplexing to me how many creationists and ID proponents will gush about the failed theory of evolution and the superiority of ID/creationsim without understanding either, or the term 'theory' for that matter. Why don't they also attack that gravity, quantum physics, germ theory, etc. are all based on theories that have gaps? It is frightening that in the 21st century, faith, belief, and sheer opinion often trump (in the minds of many) logical, well reasoned, well researched, well substantiated scientific inquiry.

I've read and studied both evolution and creationism/ID. The former being quite persuasive and thorough, the latter looking like nothing more than dressed up 'bad theology' and 'bad biblical scholarship.' I wonder if these same doubters of evolutionary theory also doubt the doctors who use science to cure what ails them? Probably not. If they were consistent biblical literalists, they would go see and exorcist instead. It seems there are more gaps and inconsistencies in the minds of these kinds of Christians than there are supposed inconsistencies or gaps in evolutionary theory.

Answer 3

Do you propose to assert that maximum persons have not have been given any real concept what we are talking approximately? particular. Why else do you think of we are right here and not in a laboratory status over some test or some thing? because of the fact we are actually not (maximum persons) knowledgeable adequate to furnish extra suitable than our pseudo-technology babble. Sorry to disappoint you. in keeping with hazard if it is quite the case for you, you may seek for supplies of better extra suitable information and not come right here and positioned us down for being the idiots some each and every person is. I propose, there are in basic terms some situations in my existence the place i've got no longer been a moron and a entire imbecile. Come on. Why decrease your standards to debate with us? and don't revile your self. I quite have a 6th grade training and could no longer immediately ever handed a GED. So there!

Answer 4

I love creationism, and I want to get a degree in creationism.

Also church science. I've heard if I get a degree in church science I will be able to explain how Jesus got up after being dead three days and started walking around like nothing ever happpened.

Plus, he rose into the sky. I'm going to see about talking courses in church science.

Oh and by the way, to hell with those goddamn evolution people.

Answer 5

People trust scienctist because it is easier to believe in something you can see as opposed to blind faith. Mankind thinks logically and wants to be the king of their domain. Blessed is the man who believes and has yet not seen.
Man's wisdom is foolishness unto God. If we wish not to believe the truth, God said He would casue us to believe a strong delusion. He would turn you over to satan for the destruction of your flesh that your soul may be saved. The soul is far more important than this physical shell.

Answer 6

Well scientists search for FACTS, there is no faith involved. Creationism is based on a book that is full of contradictions (over 350, don't beleive I will e mail to you) and full of fairy tales. case closed.

Answer 7

Man doesn't have a sinful nature. There is no such thing as sin. In the absence of sin, and absolute morality, the rest is moot. Case closed.

Answer 8

Who says "man" has a sinful nature? It's not sinful to be human, and bad behavior is a choice. Mistakes are normal, but most peole have good hearts...

Answer 9

Science Confirms the Bible
http://www.livingwaters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=284

Answer 10

Yep. Anyone can deduce that, especially if they take peyote or LSD on a regular basis. However, most people abstain from drugs and fairy fantasy, and use the faculty of rationalism instead.