Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says
- Thread starter olias
- Start date
there is science....
many top scientists state that our universe looks designed... see the quotes from nobel prize winners a few pages ago.
and there is faith...
and people who believe Jesus is God understand that belief requires grace and faith.
It seems to me it is the non believers who misquote science who need to be straightened out.
Its obvious you're harboring a deep seated need to do that yourself otherwise it wouldn't be on your mind so much ...Damien.
The scientists you're making a reference to lose their scientist credentials as soon as they begin speculating outside of the empirical means that defines science. But here they're using agnosticism as the model when they suggest, from the first part of your post, that the Universe seems to have a creator. An agnostic would agree with you. I do, I just don't buy into any catechism or dogma.
Next, I know. My wife and brother in law are born agains. He's a minister ...a real minister with a church and everything that would be required to claim it. We've had alot of conversations and they always boiled down to faith.
Okay, if they're misrepresenting what is the textbook scientific outlook then yea, if a thing is wrong its wrong but textbook
science is like a machine -- if its a law then its only because its be tried and tested to reproducable. The Big Bang, science admits is a theory after that, like Einstein, scientists are in awe of existence and how theres something instead of nothing. What I don't care for is the arrogance of having all the answers when their source is primitive sheep herders.
What a bunch of hypocritical bullshit. If you've followed this thread, knew anything about science and were the least bit fair-minded, you'd also comment on the ignorance and arrogance of the "universe from nothing" speculation and especially on STUpid's mindless insistence that "the laws of physics" allow for it.
So I take it from that you're on board with the primitive sheep herders outline on ...everything? Stu's argument is by definition the more reasonable one. When you put words into someones mouth by calling it "creation from nothing" it exposes your intention to put the other on the defensive when the phrase "creation from as yet to be defined" would be a better
way to put science's perspective. The truth of it will always recede
to the next level in the chase. The question, "where did the creator come from" unfortunately for alternative arguments to sciences' will always make the scientific proposal the best we can do.
You seem to getting things all jumbled up.
I am sure if you asked your pastor friend why he believes he would tell you it is by grace. (not science). If you asked him if science proves Jesus is God. I am sure he would say no.
Rational believers know the difference between science and faith.
I do not know one believer who does not know the difference.
Now you will hear some argue the bible says the universe is 6000 years old so it must be. But again they are not saying science says that. And frankly if you push them to show where the bible says that you can make them think... (it does not).
But, the point you were not rational about is saying that scientists are not being scientists when they say the universe appears designed.
When a scientists says that there is no way a bacteria becomes....
___________ . Given the constraints and constants of our universe.... that is scientific.
When scientists state the known observable universe is so finely tuned... that given what we know know there is no way that tuning happened by chance.... that is science.