Some of them seem to think the belief is the only thing that keeps them from murdering and living a distasteful life? Not what you are looking for I know, but only thing I can think of.
2007-11-24 18:12:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I do not think there's a solid argument for either side. Science deals with the five senses. What you can see, feel, hear, touch, or taste can fall under science. The problem is, religion doesn't fall under any of those. Sure, you can say: "I saw him lying in bed paralyzed for twenty years, then he just got up and walked", but you can't prove or disprove that it was an intelligent being. Even if you monitor the cells and notice them healing at super speed, it still doesn't prove or disprove religion.
Science and religion do not conflict if looked at closely. Many people just make them be. (you also have to remember that evolution is only a theory [just like religion is if you follow the rules of science])
2007-11-25 02:20:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by niiro13 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The argument for Theism comes from a personal choice and not a physical one. If you don't want to know God than He wont make himself known to you. If you don't want to see God than He wont show you the wonders that he has done throughout your life. Whether or not you believe is a matter of Free Will. With computers, tv and all the other media outlets; I am sure that if you wanted to start a relationship with God you wouldn't have any difficulties finding a starting point. Thank you for the question and God Bless.
2007-11-25 02:18:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by ChaRiaLer 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
there is no valid argument that DNA is too complex to have evolved by abiogenesis. Look up ribozymes.There are some which can catalyze their own synthesis.
Are you looking for arguments for a god to be included into science or into your personal life?
For science god is not testable, therefore not in the realm of science, so don't introduce.
For your personal life it depends if the thought of (a) god makes you happier or not.
PS. Ribozymes don't need proteins. Just google the term...
2007-11-25 02:13:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ah yes, the illusion of intelligent design; I guess this is as good time as any to present the snowflake as an excellent example of naturally occurring complex designs that look almost as if god sits in the clouds and carves cute little shapes as a pastime.
2007-11-25 02:16:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Charlie 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nope not really, all the arguments for theism come from the lack of knowledge he have about certain things in science, it's just used for people to fill the gaps until we find out what the truth is. People like to understand things, it makes us uncomfortable if we can't.
2007-11-25 02:11:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Arête 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
God is no more compelling an explanation for reality than "The Matrix" or "Quantum determinism", or "If a tree falls in the forest..."
When we don't know, we don't know, and then all fantastical explanations become equally plausible, or absurd.
Only the EVIDENCE matters, and there is ZERO evidence for gods.
2007-11-25 02:18:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Design is still equivocal at the level of the fine structure of the universe. Unfortunately, Creationists misrepresent and exaggerate it, reducing its effectiveness.
The other good argument is faith, but it is purely subjective.
2007-11-25 02:12:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
I'm not aware of any meaningful arguments in favor of a personal creator god.
2007-11-25 02:10:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You're asking atheists to come up with good arguments FOR theism?
WTF!?
2007-11-25 02:12:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Champion of Knowledge 7
·
0⤊
3⤋