| padib said: But I am honest, and do admit there is a chance I am wrong. |
Fair enough. I think that is the most important (on both sides) as if someobdy can admit they may be wrong they are less likely to commit atrocity in the name of their beliefs.
| padib said: But understand that it would be for me like claiming 1 might equal 0. It would basically be like claiming it were possible that 1 = 0 if I did say there may have been no pre-existing self-sufficient, para-natural begining to all this. |
I hold exactly the opposite view as for me saying that there is an omnipotent being means that it is possible for him to make it so that 1=0. If he can't change the world so that it is so then he is not omnipotent.
| padib said: Even if this were all a dream, where did the energy for that dream to exist originate? |
Again, adding another variable simply pushes the problem back one level. Where did the energy come from? From god. Where did god's energy come from? metagod. Where did metagod's energy come from...
| padib said: It's just that to me, everything in this world has an origin. Outside of our world, it's no longer bound to our understanding of things. |
How does that contradict the big bang theory though? The big bang is the origin of the universe but by definition it means that whatever caused the big bang to happen came from outside our universe and may be obeying different laws.
| padib said:
Really, I appreciate the effort you put in the subject, and I'll try to constructively debate with the counter-points as much as I can as we go along. |
You don't rally need to. I was simply trying to explain things as best I could (and there are probably errors on my part as the world is complicated and thus so are theories explaining it and do not fully understand them myself) because a lot of criticism of scientific theories consist of straw men, that is arguing that a theory claims something it does not then show how ridiculous it is. Sometimes people do it due to their lack of understanding and sometimes maliciously but if you read their argument and don't know better you can be hoodwinked.
Also, your answer could simply be faith. It takes more faith to believe in god in a world that may have come into being without a god as we view it today than in a world that cannot possibly have existed without a god as we have viewed it for most of humanity.
| padib said:
Would you be open to more examples? Also, have you seen the movie Expelled? Tell me why did it get a bad rating, if it weren't for the evolutionist elite controlling the media? Point is, it would be good for you to watch it and I'd love to hear your feedback. |
I know of Expelled but I haven't seen it yet.
| padib said:
Tell me why did it get a bad rating, if it weren't for the evolutionist elite controlling the media? Point is, it would be good for you to watch it and I'd love to hear your feedback. |
Why did Duke Nukem get bad ratings, if it weren't for the CallOf Dutytionists controlling the media?
From the trailer: "There are people out htere who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch god."
I freely admit to be one of those. The little box I want to keep science in is the material universe. There may be other material universes than our own and who knows, if they do exist maybe one day we will be able to study them from this universe. But outside of the material universe, the spiritual realm, science has no grasp and cannot even say whether it exists, let alone explain it. To expand science to cover it you would have to change it so it is not science anymore, so let me propose a name for this new discipline: religion.
"We cannot accept to treat ID as an alternative scientific theory" (said by a scientist)
At face value it would seem to support your thesis that Id is being repressed, but the important part is scientific theory.
This remind me of the Isaac Asimov quote: [Creationists] make it sound as though a "theory" is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.
From this link: 'The National Academy of Sciences defines a scientific theory as a “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses”. A theory can lead to new testable hypotheses and predictions. A theory must include the following criteria:
It must be tested by experimentation and observation of the natural world.
It must be falsifiable (i.e. experiments must conceivably exist that could prove it false).
It cannot be proven, only confirmed or disconfirmed.
It is subject to revision and change.
Intelligent design does not meet these criteria (i.e. it cannot be tested by observation and experimentation in the natural world, and the existence of an “intelligent” agent in the origin of life can not be tested nor is it falsifiable.) '
That is why ID is not accepted as a scientific theory, because it isn't one. It is a religious belief doing its best to look like a scientific theory.
One thing I like about ID is that it helps science improve by pointing out weaknesses in its explanation and like they say, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
| padib said:
Point is, it would be good for you to watch it and I'd love to hear your feedback. |
If I do I will but I found this that might interest you: http://www.expelledexposed.com
I haven't read much of the website so I am not claiming that it is a good rebuttal or anything but given that you seems interested in seeing an opposing view on it I thought you might be interested.
"I do not suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
