youBROKEmyLIFE
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2006
- Messages
- 725
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
1: This is impossible if I'm reading you correctly.BradCube said:Posing God answers far more questions which are un-answerable by us (at least through science). Origin of the universe, life etc.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense unless:
1. We know fully what evidence we would expect to find and
2. We have thoroughly research those areas and found no such evidence.
2: What does 'thoroughly researched' mean? I would say it means we've given our best effort and despite all of our attempts there is yet to be evidence. Kind of like how we've attempted to research the existence of magical fairies/leprechauns/dragons/bigfoot etc.
Because you're trying very hard to carve out some special niche that just isn't there. There's no reason why we should accept the supernatural theory of universe creation and not the supernatural theory of earthquakes just because we have a natural explanation for earthquakes... if we still didn't have the natural explanation for earthquakes then it wouldn't be any more logical to posit a supernatural force did it.BradCube said:I don't feel that this is applicable to God.
Btw it really just creates far more unanswerable questions. The answers in science are given as temporal truths which are to be accepted if you accept the axioms/observations as true, why do I accept them as true? They appear to work quite well with reality as I know it. I don't see how "God did it" provides a better answer than saying "balahal" -- Saying "god did it" is just a response and answers nothing, unless you want to start to explain how God did it, then explain how you know this (coming up with something analogous to the scientific method i suppose) and having a firm foundation in strong axioms that we as humans almost MUST accept as true.... then maybe you'll start having some answers.Posing God answers far more questions which are un-answerable by us (at least through science).
Last edited: