If science is so advanced, ask a simple question: how then could so many scientists doubt God?
https://spiritdailyblog.com/commentary/when-science-is-wrong
https://spiritdailyblog.com/commentary/when-science-is-wrong
When Science Is Wrong
- Thread starter kjfreeze
- Start date
*rolls eyes* to your *rolls eyes*
I hate it when people just slap down a post without even reading the article. Unless you are a speed reader, you simply ignored it and posted: *rolls eyes*
Are we really to believe — again, as one of endless examples, in the human body alone — that the structure below, allowing humans to see, is a product of genetic luck (genetic mistakes that piled up to create such an organ — different in every single animal)? The human eye can distinguish up to a million different colors and is more sophisticated than the largest telescope.
There are many systems in our bodies far more complex (such as the brain). If one could collect it, the energy produced by the brain would light an actual lightbulb. Approximately 50,000 cells in your body will die and be replaced with new cells in the time it takes you to read this sentence. Every square inch of your skin contains twenty feet of blood vessels, four yards of nerve fibers, 1,300 nerve cells, a hundred sweat glands, and three million cells.
If they were laid end to end, all the blood vessels (some are a hundred times smaller than a hair) could encircle the earth eight times.
Oh, and your nose can detect up to a trillion smells.
I read very, very quickly. Its just a long form version of Pascal's Wager.
All the great scientists throughout time have all been wrong. Why are the ones today any different?
I'm not worried about science being wrong with an open mind to skepticism and to honestly keep searching for the truth. What I am worried about is when "science" becomes political. That ain't science. That's an agenda. Whenever you hear the term "settled science," run away as somebody wants to shut down down debate and discussion for agenda reasons, not science reasons.
Science is never "settled". If it were, it wouldn't be science. It's no wonder people are skeptical of the dogma that's been politicized.
The BEST question to ask a lib who throws "science" up to you is "HOW MANY GENDERS ARE THERE"? They HATE that question.
not really. Pascal’s wager turns solely on the concept that you’re wagering your soul if you fail to believe in deity and are wrong, therefore err on the side of less loss and live more as a “religious precept abiding” agnostic.
I didn’t get into much digesting the rest
my scientific basis is that it’s impossible to prove the absence of deity based upon Einstein’s relativity and First Law of Thermodynamics. Matter and energy are relative,and in certain states, transitional towards energy, and energy can be neither created or destroyed, just changing between forms.
Therefore if our corporal crude carbon based electro-chemical constructed mind can achieve self awareness, why can’t an unseen organized energy form the basis of a more advanced intellect with ability to manipulate energy to achieve goals
Anyone can believe or doubt that to whatever level they wish, but it can’t be said to be impossible
I should have been more clear. Basically the article said you should believe because whats the other option.
Or when they tell you that man-made climate change is real, ask them why they aren't changing the climate to save us all? LOL
I get your gist, and I think the article is heavy handed in kicking evolution in the meat sack in favor of intelligent design. I absolutely believe that evolution and natural selection occurred, and the supposition that intelligent design is the only way we have the variety and complexity of life is way simplistic and illogical. My believe in deity does not preclude evolution or science in any way.
My main foray into the discussion was with respect to characterization to Pascal’s wager, which I don’t see here
Agree completely. God created everything...but couldn't use evolution? Umm...why?
Similar threads
