-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Snit on Saturday 02 Jul 2011 20:43 : \____
> An Old Friend stated in post 4e0f41b4$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 7/2/11 10:05
> AM:
>
> ...
>>> Where did "whatever" that started it all come from?
>>>
>>> Basic science tells us matter cannot be created nor destroyed it just
>>> changes state, so where did the inital matter come from?
>>
>> Perhaps it always existed. Like you say your God does.
>
> Right. The idea that the evidence and our observations have not given us
> all answers (it clearly has not) does not in any way support the idea that
> there is some guy in the sky who is all powerful, all knowing, all loving,
> etc. When people ask questions about the universe they think science has
> not answered and then try to find areas of ignorance to show how some god is
> a reasoned answer, they are just making things up. Assuming the existence
> of something more complex than the universe just to try to explain the
> unknowns in the universe is silly.
>
>>> Sounds like God, or some supreme being to me.......
>>
>> So your God sounds like a "God of the Gaps" ... whatever science can't
>> explain, then you attribute that to God.
>
> But then all sorts of other attributes are given to this "god"... all
> knowing, all powerful, etc. Silliness.
>
>> I don't have a problem with that, per se. It is a way that many religious
>> people reconcile the inconsistencies of their faith with the observable facts
>> and truth that is discovered though scientific inquiry.
>>
>> The problem with the "God of the Gaps" rationalization is that you
>> continue to minimize your God's importance in things. Your God becomes
>> smaller and smaller as science explains more of the mysteries surrounding
>> our existence.
>
> And the problem of making up stories about this God of the Gaps... things
> that have nothing to do with the gaps in the first place.
>
>> In other words, by making your God a "God of the Gaps," you are subjugating
>> your God to science, and making scientific discovery and fact more important
>> than the scriptures that show the revelations of your God.
>>
>> And that's something it appears your God doesn't approve of.
>
> I had fun with a couple of Jehovah Witnesses who came to my door and tried
> to say their religion was in agreement with science... so I asked if that
> meant they accepted their views were, at least theoretically, contingent on
> new evidence... would they accept am alternate theory if one could be
> produced. If not, of course, they were not following science. If so, they
> were not following their religion. One said yes... the other said no... and
> I had fun egging on their debate. :)
I haven't seen scientists knocking on people's doors to "convert" them
to science (yet).
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4S3i4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo50FwCeNc6BItdIHImXipsavf72wZ3l
BjIAoIs0WOei+gbUImMM5O97Cp0NDsvx
=V1ml
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
