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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
*rolls eyes* to your *rolls eyes**rolls eyes*
As much as it happens on this board...*rolls eyes* to your *rolls eyes*
I hate it when people just slap down a post without even reading the article.
Tomorrow's science feels like magic today.All the great scientists throughout time have all been wrong. Why are the ones today any different?
I read very, very quickly. Its just a long form version of Pascal's Wager.
I should have been more clear. Basically the article said you should believe because whats the other option.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
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? LOLThe BEST question to ask a lib who throws "science" up to you is "HOW MANY GENDERS ARE THERE"? They HATE that question.
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.I should have been more clear. Basically the article said you should believe because whats the other option.
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