By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Alara317 on 16 December 2012
Edit Thread
DaRev said:
Alara317 said:
DaRev said:

no one or god gets a free pass I suspect that you see where Science runs into a wall inevitably, and MUST apply FAITH (evidence and substance) at some point through the best of scientific thnking.

you can't be serious.  So becuase Science doesn't have all the answers, you HAVE to apply faith?  I don't know precisely what you were doing on october 5th of this year, but if you claimed you were out saving a class of orphans from a burning bus, I'd have to believe you?  

You cannot tell me you don't see the glaring flaw in that logic.  

and who's to say it's not more intelligent to follow the leap of faith that intelligent, scientific minds have proposed to us, and that is the big bang?  Why does it have to be GOD that got us here, or more specifically your god?  Science knows the 'big bang' is a theory, that's why they call it the big bang theory, but that doesn't mean they don't have REASON to belive in it.  The most intelligent minds of the last century didn't just go "Well we need a starting point, so...we exploded from nothing!" A lot of creationists like to simplify the Big Bang Theory as such as an attempt to disparge science, but it's the strawman fallacy.  the difference between that macro and the one disparging religion is that the one disparging religion is far more acccurate.  there's no science behind god, no evidence pointing towards a divine creator;  God IS the placeholder the religious put there that the scientific community isn't foolish enough to resort to. 

Not knowing doesn't make you a lesser man.  Sometimes it's okay to accept that "I don't know for sure" where the universe came from, and it's much more intelligent and humble than making something up to fill in the blank and killing people for not believing you, or otherwise judging them as fools.  

Dude, no need to get your panties in a knot - I accept the Big Bang Theory. I have absolutely no quarrels with Science. I simply believe, logically, that Science points to a Creator. Again I say Wii Us don't just fall out of the sky nor nor does water, ...well , you know what I mean. If everything that is complex and perfect, e.g. a computer, has a creator, isn't it then logical to think that nature or humans which are so complex and pefect, must also have a Creator?

Moreover created things, e.g. machines or a computer, can only do what their creator designed them to do. If it doesn't do what is was created to do then there is some sort of abnomality (or RROD). Nature and Humans are the same way, in that they were created to do only certain things. That's why cars don't have wings and neither do humans. Planes do and so do birds, because they were CREATED that way - is that not logical? 

And by the way, I don't know for sure that there is a God, however, I have FAITH (evidence and substance) that there is a God. And by the way, you should stop reducing your arguments agaisnt Religion/Christianity to a rant about Homosexuality and Murder, because it just makes you into the same type of fanatical nut that you're fighting against. Try quoting the bible back a Religious zealots - that's what Jesus did

But that's it, Science does not lead to a creator, there is no evidence and I don't see how you could possibly argue that point.  Just becuase life is complex doesn't mean it had to be created.  Mountains are not life, yet they required millions of years of very specific circumstances to get where they are.  Just becuase something is awe inspiring doesn't mean it has to be the work of something greater.  Just becuase something is a one in a billion chance doesn't mean a divine creator cheated to make it happen; in a universe as vast as it is, with too numerous interactions happening every second, you really think that somewhere soemthing couldn't possibly happen?  

You're applying something where it doesn't need to be applied.  You're using a variation of the watchmaker gambit, and it's been debunked plenty of times.  

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm

What it basically says is that the analogy is just that: an analogy.  It is not proof of anything, it's just an analogy.  You're taking it as proof, and that is pretty illogical.