You mean like all those who kill their babies out of sheer convenience today?

(BTW, Abraham didn't kill his son Isaac. It was a test to see where his devotion was. It might help if you actually read the text)

If I go out and do something evil "in the name of science", does that somehow invalidate science itself? Just because some evil people choose to attach themselves to a "cause"? Then why should it apply here?

If you bother to actually THINK rather than REACT, you will see that the fact that people kill babies is actually PROOF that God exists! Here's why:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifl9...#t=2058.628798

If you believe hard enough apocalypses will happen; thanks genii, whoops I mean genesis because I wouldn't what to be rude. I don't inflict opinions just facts, evolve. :p

Necessary evils are from fairy tails, that's that!

While I wholeheartedly agree that "bad things happening to good people" is not a refutation of a Creator, neither is it or Free Will, to whatever extent that it exists, any manner of proof that a Creator exists, since mere Chance and evolution is sufficient and far simpler. Occam's Razor applies here. There is absolutely no need nor justification for jumping to such a huge and evidence-lacking conclusion. Not only are Chance and Evolution simpler, there is a vast store of supporting evidence for that mechanic and none for a Creator.

I've forgotten lots of it since Sunday school. Just like many of the Choose Your Own Adventure books I had as a kid. I remember the golden rule. That's in there, right? Tho is cancelled out by killing grown-healthy-choices or saying don't pray to gold cows pray to gold men :doh: but not if they like each other (for ê!)


Pay attention:
...many times definitions can be opinions and rarely reality! F opinions period

Occam's Razor does not apply, as mere chance and evolution are not a COMPLETE solution, while Creation is. You are forgetting the very important fact that neither chance nor evolution addresses the beginning of the universe or the fact that something came out of nothing and was caused by [insert guess of the day here].

There's obviously no beginning to time not recorded by "us!" Sense couldn't get more common. :rolleyes:

Then I guess you disagree with both science AND religion. What universe does YOUR common sense come from? ;)

Solar systems expand like seeds to trees... ;)

So, ether a crater has always existed (and just decided now) or the table only looks different shades the way the light is hitting it?

Add: There is no difference between gods, religions and the spaghetti monster, except one was created to stop moronism
whoops again, Mormonism and other opinions!

Sin on, it's okay gods say so!
 

The "books" teach original sin and forgiveness if that don't beat all, war and rule (if only education!) So, apparently sin is infinite? Nope!

Creation is only complete IF you accept a conclusion with zero evidence and accept faith or guesswork as some form of deductive reasoning, which of course is untrue. Science has no problem with dividing knowledge from speculation and the odds that some things are unknowable. That is as complete as humanly possible if one actually understands logic and the scientific method. Sorry. Faith and ancient texts written by many ultra superstitious people in early written languages that were dependent on context (being tribal and verbal, without vowels, and possibly dependent on pitch but certainly on inflection (read "especially imprecise") don't qualify. Occam's Razor applies as always since it has proven over centuries to be the best, far most often correct, conclusion or even speculation where less than ideal amounts of evidence can or have been collected.

To be precise, Science does not claim that "something came from nothing" during the Big Bang even though precisely that has been observed at the subatomic quantum level. The term used is "singularity" which is as close as words can describe an exceptionally extreme event where the laws of Physics we see consistent everywhere else and for all Time, seem to breakdown, or more accurately, we don't know how to understand it yet, and possibly may never fully comprehend it.

There is nothing wrong with having Faith as long as you don't try to pass it off as scientific or logical. If you wish to believe that Faith is somehow superior to Science, that's entirely up to you, but please recognize that only works among the similarly faithful, just like with witches, demons, angels, banshees, leprechauns, jinn, houri (the so-called "72 virgins") werewolves, vampires, Heaven and Hell, etc., etc. ad infinitum.

PS BTW although the terminology isn't perfectly clear, I'm betting that jamison2000e is referring to the discussion over Time being a human construct and not necessarily a component of our Universe at the Quantum level.

Let me clarify my position on this.

Faith and science are compatible and complementary. Further, logic and reason are fundamental to both.


Further still, there is no coherent world view that excludes either.


Caveat: Many so-called "faiths" are obviously irrational. So are many things accepted as "science". That is the nature of anything touched by humans.

Now, here is one (of many) problems I have with evolution, natural selection, and survival of the fittest: If you saw a sick child being tortured and killed, your stomach would turn (I hope). Yet, according to every possible explanation of those theories, you should be REJOICING in that scenario because you are eliminating the weak, as well as eliminating reproductive competition. Why is that not so?

Time is tricky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oiHxsMse8U but we've evolved (don't think biologically if that helps :jawa:) from cave walls to computers (&c) so maybe one day we can except that many things have no possible answers.

Big problems I see as "individuals," hopefully living around one hundred years (tho currently devolving on that,) we are not individuals but environments. :study:

While I agree that for some faith and science are complementary, I totally disagree with certain overlaps you profess. Logic and reason are NOT applicable to any subject outside of our Universe. Mathematicians contemplating such things as "String Theory" and "Multiple Universes", even what occurs in singularities, freely admit that though Math has a good record at prediction, this is merely speculation, not even a working hypothesis. The two must be compartmentalised when both are held by one person since one abrogates the other. They cannot be integrated and must be kept separate.

You can convince yourself that Faith is based on reason but that fits nobody's definitions of terms but yours and people faced with the quandary of trusting in logic, yet having to reconcile Faith. As has been stated to you repeatedly by many here, the dictionary definition of Faith is

Furthermore, regarding "some things accepted as science" being irrational - which things and accepted by whom?

Of course they are. Logic and reason are the very elements that allow us to come to ANY conclusion and are inherently necessary for ANY coherent thought. Further, logic and reason are principles that transcend the physical. Logic and reason are still valid even if no minds were in existence to apply them. And, they are further evidence of the existence of a logical and reasoning God. If you don't accept that, then tell me - how does evolution explain our ability to exercise logic and reason?

If I can anticipate your next objection, it is true that a finite mind cannot fully comprehend an infinite being through logic, reason, or any other means. However, it does not follow that logic and reason are confined to our universe - quite the contrary - a logical and reasoning Being created the universe, therefore it is a perfectly resonable deducton that logic and reason would be attributes of anything He created. Beyond that, the Bible gives additional revelation of God through anthroporphic terms, which is all we, as humans, can possibly hope to be able to understand. This is exactly why God said we were created "in His image" - He gave us enough common attributes with Him to facilitate communication and limited comprehension of the Infinite.

The problem here is that you are once again deferring to the contemporary definition of "faith". The CLASSICAL definition is more properly rendered as "trust" by today's linguistic norms. Check the etymology of the term "faith", as I have taken pains to attempt earlier. Today, "faith", "blind faith", and "belief" are hoplessly muddled together in the English language.

I will grant you that many religions practice something like the "faith" you appear to think of. In that case, I will agree with you that "blind faith" requires neither logic nor reason. To our embarassment, a great number of professing Christians fall into this camp as well. "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" is, unfortunately, the mantra of ignorance. But, true Christianity does not practice "blind faith". It practices "trust", or the classical meaning of "faith". One cannot "trust" something without adequate persuasion by evidence. I can have "blind faith" that a chair will support my weight, but I will not "trust" it until I have examined it closely, am persuaded that it is solid enough, and then actually SIT on it. I need not go to the scientific extreme of testing material strength or stress profiles in order to "trust" it.