I wish you would just at least consider you're BOTH wrong?

Question

The world is more than 6,000 years old (carbon dating). Science cannot explain God out of existence (what were the laws of physics prior to the Big Bang)

I am tired now, and apologize for the bluntness of this last post, but the Bible isn't the inspired word of God. We are the inspired words of God, and none of us are mentioned anywhere in the Bible. As for non-believers, to suggest that science and logic dispel any myth of God is incomplete (to put it nicely). Who here knows all that science can tell us? Quantum theory tells us, in a nutshell, that we can make very good guesses based on very good odds about things, but also that there's always a chance.

Who ever said that God created us, as you imply (and the 80s are history; the hairdo might be referenced in the Bible, actually).

As for the physics angle,no one will ever know, because it is, by definition, undefined (as far as results go). But keep trying.

If the burden of proof is on deists, why do so many atheists use science to argue against God's existence? Is it not good for the gander as well?

Again, keep trying...

Fine, instead of carbon dating, (and you've forced my hand here, so tsk tsk); if the Bible is an account of the entire history of the world, why do we find dinosaur fossils but no acknowledgement of them in the Bible?

Keep trying...

Having an answer and making the pieces fit is science by virtue of its nature. Moreover, why do people break up w/ those they are seemingly doing well with? B/c something tells them they should, i.e., they have an answer and the make their actions fit.

Keep trying...

I deconstruct only that which does not fit what I have come to believe. I do so for my sake, not yours nor anyone else's. Is this not merely reaffirmation? "a rose by any other name..."

In the ballpark, but keep trying...

Answer 1

It doesn't matter whether anyone is wrong.

Answer 2

Why is it people think atheism is about trying to disprove god.

If you start with the question how did we get here? With no assumptions as to the answer. Look at the body of current knowledge and draw a conclusion based on that knowledge. The answer is I don't know. The evidence did not in ANY WAY suggest an answer or even a possible answer of a "thinking being".

People get into a quagmire if you start with ANY assumption as to the possible answer. If you start with a premise of a god people try to find facts to fit the answer.

I have never correctly solved any problem by starting with the answer and then making pieces to fit.

Answer 3

Science may explain HOW the world was created but Religion explains the WHY.

I'm not sure where you get the 6000 year figure from but of course the world is older than we know, but it is also more wonderful than we can understand and that is why I believe in god. I may be wrong, so were scientists when they thought that the world was flat.

We could all be wrong and the world could have been created as an experiment by aliens but I would rather stand for something than believe in anything.

Answer 4

Provided you consider the possibility that you're wrong, too!

I already keep that in the back of my mind, while, like everyone else, acting on what I believe to be the best view of the world that I've come across.

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Oliver Cromwell
(I do, I'm not sure he did.)

I'm not sure you're correct on scientific methodology, or the implications of quantum theory. And why mention the wholly inappropriate carbon-dating? Stephen Jay Gould presented the idea of non-overlapping magisteria, which you are using, but it was declared flawed by many, and not just scientists.
How do you arrive at the certain statement "We are the inspired words of God"? Shouldn't there be a "probably" or "possibly" in there, by your reckoning?

Edit:"I deconstruct only that which does not fit what I have come to believe." What!? If you only do that, you are asking of others what you are not prepared to do yourself! Why are your core beliefs sacrosanct?

Answer 5

It is quite clear that your words reek of deconstructive philosophy - not a bad thing at all, but in deconstructing the foundations you mentioned, you are trying to build another foundation different but not necessarily apart from the rest.


It is a fact in all these, human beings need foundations to root their beliefs and make sense out of this world - to some its science, others religion, etc. but one thing is certain, everyone tries to seek for a founded truth to set their feet firmly on. For every question thrown here, i know God smiles, for every inquiry that man makes is a step closer towards finding Him...inevitably.

Answer 6

that is the failings that kinfolk and acquaintances do for another the completed 12 months round that fairly count number. If the date does not sign up mutually with your nearest and dearest, then it does not recommend you're cared for much less. the very shown reality that you're literally not dissatisfied ought to point that on your heart you comprehend this already.

Answer 7

Why must we be created at all? If our existence is improbable so much so that a supreme being had to create us, then the creation of a supreme being is that much more improbable.

In other words, if we are so complicated that a God had to create us, then isn't the creation of a god that much more complicated, thus more improbable?

add> Well put XD!!!

add> you fail to put reputable examples. Atheists do not use examples as proof. In fact they use logic. How can you prove that there is not a creator. As you astutely put, the burden of proof is the deists. My favorite proof is that no all-knowing god would ever kill! :-)

Answer 8

Any human can be wrong, or they can be right, but who is it with the ultimate authority to say what is right? I sure as heck am not going to let any other person tell me what I need to believe, that is my own choice. The fact I cannot scientifically rule out the Creators existence and I have so many experiences spiritually that are not explainable, provides the fuel (faith) for my personal right. So what, some know not what they say and so forth, it is their thing, not mine. I am the person I need to take care of.

Answer 9

Finally a person who is a mediator. I completely agree with you. Science can only explain so much as can religion. I think science was first created to prove the existence of a higher power, be it God or aliens. No one will ever know.

Answer 10

You are misrepresenting one side of the argument, and also showing significant bias in your wording.

"Science cannot explain God out of existence" presupposes that God exists, whether you realize that or not.

The burden of proof is on the theists--they wish to add their deity (or deities) to the "sum of all things." It's not up to scientists to 'disprove' God any more than it's up to them to 'disprove' that a group of celestial gnomes in a garden on a planet in the Andromeda galaxy are controlling everything.

As long as there is no evidence for God, the only rational assumption is that there is no God. Also, anyone who accepts God because of a lack of "disproof" who doesn't also believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, etc. is a total hypocrite.

Answer 11

If you can read the article on carbon dating on the link below and not doubt the validity of carbon dating then you are intellectually dishonest and there's no reason to try to justify anything else that you believe until you repent.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=726